KALI CHARAN KANTH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present writ application is no more res integra and the similar issue was decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3937-3938 of 2011 and other analogous cases holding that the case of seasonal employees of the concerned Unit will only be taken into account for calculating the benefits due to them. He further submits that similar issue was also decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2637 of 2016 and CWJC No. 5630 of 2016. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment aforesaid. The judgment under reference is final adjudication of the matter.

(3.) Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, submits that in the case of the petitioners, more benefit has been granted than what has been granted to the persons by the aforesaid judgment under reference. He placed reliance on the counter affidavit to dispute the claim of the petitioners. However, the counter affidavit does not answer the issue raised in the instant case on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court under reference. Having regard to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2018 2 PLJR 929 (Full Bench) and Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, the Court is constrained to dispose of the writ application with a direction to the respondents to follow Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 and give the similar treatment the petitioners in this case like the petitioners of CWJC No. 2637 of 2016 and CWJC No. 5630 of 2016 (Annexure-6 series). Necessary exercise following the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (supra) and the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 has to be completed. Necessary decision must be taken by the respondents within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event the respondents distinguish the case of the petitioners from the case of the petitioners of CWJC No. 2637 of 2016 and CWJC No. 5630 of 2016, they have to assign reasons for adopting different procedures. The monetary benefit, if any admissible, should be paid to the petitioners within aforesaid time frame.