GUPTESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel appearing for Accountant General Bihar.

(2.) Petitioners in all these writ petitions claim to have been appointed as temporary Muharrirs/Sangrahaks in the various revenue division of the State of Bihar. They claim that pursuant to policy decision of the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar dated 2-5-1992 (Annexured-3) their services were regularised some time in the year 1992-93 and after completing the permissible period of service they ail have retired but they are not being paid their pension on the ground that after regularlisation they have not completed ten years of service so as to make them eligible for pension under the Bihar Pension Rules. The prayer in these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to pay the retirement and pensionary benefits including gratuity to the petitioners without delay and for that relief petitioners have relied upon judgments of this Court contained in Annexures- 6 and 8 which were given by single Judge and Annexure-7 which was by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal confirming the judgment contained in Annexure-6. It also appears that against the judgments contained in Annexures 6 and 7 the State had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 28th February, 2002 vide order contained in Annexure-9 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2070 of 1999.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State has failed to show any good ground as to why the State is treating the petitioners differently than the petitioners in whose favour this Court has already decided the relevant issue through judgments noticed above.