TARKESHWAR RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to AAG-12 for the State and Mr. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General.

(2.) Petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to pay him full pension/gratuity including commuted value of pension after treating him in service with effect from 15.07.1960. The respondents have granted/sanctioned the same treating him in the regular establishment of the T.B. Hospital, Koilwar (for short 'Hospital') in the District of Bhojpur with effect from 12.3.1973. There is no controversy that the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 01.03.96 from the post of Ward Attendant in the Hospital and is in receipt of pension. The petitioner has not disclosed his status in the writ petition before being regularized and brought on the regular establishment of the Hospital with effect from 12.3.1973. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.15222 of 2006 dt.20-04-2012 no.4 after service on the petitioner. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner. The counter affidavit states that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Contingent Menial on 15.7.60. Payment of such employee used to be made from contingent fund on the basis of day to day performance. He was not in receipt of salary in a pay scale. In other words, petitioner did not hold a substantive post until he was regularized and made Ward Attendant with effect from 12.3.1973. Relying on Rule 61 of the Bihar Pension Rule (Annexure-B) it is contended that as per the said provision the qualifying period of an employee shall not take into account the service rendered, if any, on casual basis for which payment were made from the Contingent fund. In the submissions of the respondents the petitioner, therefore, did not qualify to count his period of service between 15.7.60 to 11.3.1973 for the purpose of grant of pension. The respondents have enclosed the service book of the petitioner which seems to have been opened only after he was regularized and borne on the regular cadre/establishment of the Hospital. From the averments made in the writ petition, this Court is unable to find any material to demonstrate that the petitioner was working on the regular establishment/cadre of the Hospital and was paid salary in a pay scale admissible to the post prior to 12.3.73. In the light of the aforesaid, in my view, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of relief prayed for in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(3.) There shall be no order as to costs.