STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PREM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitionen an empioyee of the Bihar State Dairy Development Corporation Limited, a Government Company, registered under the Companies Act, was taken in the regular establishment of the Government immediately before liquidation of the said Government Company as an employee of the Government. Petitioner retired from service. Since in the Government he did not work for a period of ten years, he was not accorded pension. For the purpose of obtaining pension and other benefits, petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition. The court directed grant of pension to the petitioner and also directed that while considering the service period for which the petitioner should be accorded pension, the service rendered by him in the Government Company should be taken note of. This judgment was rendered on 31st August, 2000. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal was filed on 6th July, 2001. with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was not even made ready on 4.12.2003. Accordingly on 4.12.2003 a Division Bench of this Court granted time till 8.12.2003 to make ready the said application with a further direction that failing which the appeal shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. It appears that only thereafter the application for condonation of delay was made ready and the same was allowed on 2.1.2004. The appellant did not apply, nor made any attempt to obtain stay of the order under appeal. In the meantime, the order of the court was complied with and pension payable to the petitioner on the basis enumerated in the order under appeal had been fixed and the same has also been paid from the date of superannuation of the petitioner.

(2.) HOWEVER , having regard to the fact that such pension was paid after the appeal was presented with an application for condonation of delay, it would not be appropriate to hold that on account of subsequent compliance of the order under appeal the appellant has given a go -by to its rights and contentions in the appeal. However, in the background of the case, as above, we have to ultimately consider and decide the merit of the appeal as well as the claim of the appellant founded thereon. It does not appear that if the petitioner had retired from the services of the Government company, he would have received any pension. In other words, the conditions of service of the petitioner at the time he was an employee of the Government Company did not entail pension. It also does not appear that the State had any obligation by reason of any statute or policy decision of the State Government to take in its employment, employees of a Government Company which was on the verge of liquidation.

(3.) IN the circumstances, upon the Government Company being liquidated, the petitioner would have lost the opportunity of serving his employer. As a result of obtaining employment in State, the appellant became entitled to all the benefits attached to such employment. One of those benefits was payment of pension after superannuation in terms of the conditions imposed in the Rules for that purpose. There is no dispute that unless an employee has served the Government for a period of ten years, in terms of the Rules he is not entitled to pension. The Rules do not recognize any service other than Government service for the purpose of recognizing entitlement to receive pension. In the circumstances, the logical conclusion would be that the petitioner was not entitled to any pension whatsoever from the Government.