YUGESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three writ petitions, similar issue is involved and accordingly, a common order is being passed in all the above stated three writ petitions. All the above stated three writ petitions have been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to declare that the para 6 of the Service Condition Rule, 2004 of the Rural Institute, Birauli, Samastipur does not have retrospective effect and the said rule does not apply to the cases of the petitioners.

(2.) Petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was appointed as Peon (Krishi Anusewak) on 1.10.1970 and he was made permanent on the aforesaid post on 3.3.1976 vide memo No. 754, dated 3.3.1976. Petitioner was given time bound promotion with effect from 9.8.1999 vide memo No. 156 dated 26.9.2007. The services of the petitioner and some other employees were confirmed in due course in the year 1975. Petitioner retired from the service on 29.2.2008 but his retiral dues such as Pension and Gratuity etc. were denied by the concerned University on the ground of Service Rule of 2004. Petitioner filed CWJC No. 14085 of 2009 for payment of pension and other retiral dues which was disposed of on 27.10.2009 by a Bench of this Court directing the Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna and the Director, Rural Institute of Higher Studies, Birauli, Samastipur to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, if it is filed, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months but his grievance was not redressed by the concerned authorities.

(3.) Petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition was appointed as Peon (Krishi Anusewak) on 15.4.1966 and his service was made permanent on 3.3.1976 in due course. Petitioner got time bound promotions and he was confirmed on the aforesaid post but after retirement when his retiral dues was not paid, he filed CWJC No. 17495 of 2009 for payment of pension and other retiral dues and the said petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2009 directing the concerned authorities to make payment of admitted dues of the petitioner on filing of representation petition but in spite of aforesaid direction, the respondents did not pass any order in respect of retiral benefits of the petitioner and the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been denied by the concerned authorities on the ground of Service Rule of 2004.