SURESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for mandamus against the respondents directing them to compute and pay pro-rata pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity taking into account the entire service rendered by him from 7.10.1961 to 14.10.1977, under the State of Bihar in the Department of Information and Public Relation whereafter he was appointed in the service of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, hereinafter called as the 'the Board' on 15.10.1977.

(2.) It appears that aforementioned claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Department vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf' of respondent-State on the ground that his appointment in the Board was made on his own application and not that the he was transferred in the service of the Board in public interest. In this regard a reference to Clause (iii) of the Finance Department Memo No. 5190-F dated 30th April, 1976 has been made and a copy thereof has . been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which provides that all cases of absorption of Government servants on a permanent basis in public undertaking should be examined keeping in view the public interest involved. In the cases of a Government servant, who is elected for appointment in an autonomous body (including public undertakings) on the basis of his own application, the transfer should not be deemed to be in the public interest and the Government will not accept any liability to pay any retirement benefits or for carry forward of leave for the period of service rendered under Government.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that on 7.10.1961 the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned permanent post of Radio Mechan-C in the Government department and confirmed on it with effect from 1.3.1970. Later his application for appointment in the service of the Board to the post of Technician Telecommunication was forwarded by the Director, Information and Public Relation Department and on his appointment in the Board he was relieved under the orders of the Director, Information vide Annexure-3. The petitioner joined on 15.10.1977, in the Board, from where he ultimately superannuated in the afternoon of 30th June, 1999. Thus, according to the learned counsel the petitioner possesses the qualifying service for receiving pension and is entitled for pro-rate pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity for the services rendered by him in the Government. In support of this he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Praduman Kumar Jain v. Union of India, reported in 1994 Supp(2) SCC 548.