CHARITRA PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but significant question whether the village Choukidars are entitled to count the service prior to 1-1-1990 for the purpose of pension arises for consideration in this writ petition. As a matter of fact, the question already stands answered in the negative in the case of Karoo Paswan v. State of Bihar, 1999 (2) BLJR 1446. However, when this case came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge he took the view that there was conflict between the decision in the cases of Karoo Ram (supra) and Upendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1995 (2) PLJR 22, and referred the case for hearing by a Division Bench. That is how this case came before this Bench.

(2.) The short facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as village Choukidar in Bit No. 2 of Manigachi Police Station in Darbhanga District in the year 1973. Pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government making the post of village Choukidar regular vide Circular No. 359 dated 17-1-1990, his services were 'regularised' with effect from 1-1-1990. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30-6-1990. After superannuation he made representations for payment of retrial dues, viz. pension, gratuity, unutilised leave salary, amounts of GPF and group insurance but nothing has been paid. The petitioner has given the example of one Dularchand Paswan who upon his retirement was paid gratuity, unutilised leave salary, GPF dues. The case of the petitioner is that upon his absorption in Government Service he is entitled to count the past service continuously rendered by him prior to 1-1-1990 and to have his pension fixed according, besides other retiral dues.

(3.) Two counter-affidavit one on behalf of the District Magistrate, Darbhanga and the other on behalf of the Home (Police) Department have been filed. From the former affidavit it appears that Rs. 5,318.70 as the amount of group insurance, Rs. 10,018 as 90 per cent provisional gratuity, and Rs. 18,999/- as unutilised leave salary have been paid to the petitioner after filing of this case. Regarding the GPF it has been stated that as the petitioner did not make any contribution, he is not entitled to the same. As regards pension it has been stated that the petitioner did not render 10 years service and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. In the other affidavit on behalf of the Home (Police) Department it has been stated that in terms of the Bihar Pension Rules, unless the employee completes qualifying period of ten years service he is not entitled to pension though he is entitled to gratuity in terms of the Rule 144 of the Pension Rules and necessary payment has already been made to the petitioner. Reference has been made to letter Nos. 7030 dated 17-7-2003 and 5932 dated 12-9-2003 of the Home (Police) Department containing decision of the State Government regarding entitlement to gratuity and pension.