SURYAKANT THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who was initially appointed as Medical Officer under the District Board, Darbanga, in the year 1948 but later on he became an employee of the State Government pursuant to the notification dated 16.3.1981 (Annexure 3.) The prayer of the writ petitioner is for a direction to the State Government that the period during which the petitioner has worked with the District Board be counted for the purpose of fixation of his retirement benefits,

(2.) THE State Government tinder the Bihar State Road and Hospital Provincialisation Act nationalised all the hospitals of the District Boards from time to time. THE first notification to this effect was issued on 23.3.1979 whereunder 20 hospitals managed by the District Board were taken over. At the same time, all the employees of the District Board became the employees of the State Government. THE second notification was issued on 31.3.1980 whereunder 70 hopitals were nationalised and the final notification was issued on 16-3-1981 (Annexure 3) nationalising the other hospitals which also included the hospital in which the petitioner was working as Medical Officer. In this notification, it was made clear that the services rendered in the District Board by the employees concerned shall not be counted for the purpose of giving retirement benefits such as pension and grauity etc.

(3.) IT bas been urged in the present application that when the State Government had accepted the claim of other employees of the District Board, there was no justification to take a discriminatory stand in the case of the petitioner who was initially appointed by the District Board but subsequently became an employee of the State Government. In other words, according to the petitioner, for the purpose of fixation of pension and other benefits, the services rendred in the District Board with effect from 1.4.1949 or with effect from the date of actual appointment in the District Board, whichever may be later, should be taken into account in the case of the petitioner.