BHUPAL KUMAR HALDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the Petitioner apart from the various reliefs sought for, details whereof have been mentioned in different clauses of paragraph-1 of the writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.10.1993 passed by Respondent Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the claim for grant of pension to the Petitioner has been refused on the grounds mentioned therein, copy of the said order is made An-' nexure-5 to this writ application.

(2.) Shortly stated the fact of this case is that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of junior clerk on 15.6.1956 in the Rajya Transport Department, Govt. of Bihar. After formation of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), the services of the Petitioner and other employees of the Rajya Transport Department were transferred to the Corporation. While the Petitioner was in the service of the Corporation he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and thereafter to the post of Traffic Inspector on 12.6.71 and 5.6.81 respectively in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- per month. The Petitioner ultimately retired on 30.11.1988. Since the retiral benefits not paid to the Petitioner he filed a writ application before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 3454/89. The said writ application was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.8.89 whereby the Respondent Chairman of the Corporation, on a prayer being made on behalf of the Petitioner, was directed to pay at least the amount of contributory provident fund within the time mentioned therein, copy of the said order is made annexure-3 to this writ application. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent Corporation has paid the amount of contributory provident fund to the Petitioner. The Petitioner again filed a w(sic) application being C.W.J.C. No. 7994/ claiming pension like other Govt. servants. The contention of the Petitioner was that since he was appointed by the Government in the Rajya, Transper Department he is entitled to pension I(sic) other Govt. servants from the Respondent Corporation. A Division Bench of the Court, wherein I was one of'the parties without going into the merits of the cl(sic) of the Petitioner has directed him to fil(sic) comprehensive representation before Chief of Administration who will disp of the same by a speaking order (sic) giving opportunity of being heard wi(sic) the time mentioned therein, copy of said order is made Annexure-4 to this application. The Petitioner, according filed representation before the Respondent Chief of Administration, who after he(sic) the Petitioner has passed the impuge order rejecting the prayer for gra(sic) pension mainly on the ground that (sic) appointment of the Petitioner in the (sic) Transport Department was temp(sic) one, his services were transferred to Corporation, and, as such, he is no titled to pension, as claimed by him.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing o(sic) half of the Petitioner has challenge order of the Respondent Chief of ministration on the ground that Petitioner was appointed on the parmanent post of junior clerk in the Transport Department, Govt. of Bihar after formation of the Corporation year 1959 his services were transfer the Corporation, his prayer for p(sic) could not have been refused b(sic) Respondent Corporation. While deve(sic) argument learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that similarly si(sic) employees Sri P. Dayal was allov(sic) draw pension like other Govt. se(sic) Similarly other employee, namely, Kameshwar Pd. Sahmat, whose services were also transferred to the Corporation, was given such benefit and accordingly, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been discriminated in grant of pension by the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the terms and conditions of deputation or transfer of the Govt, servants to the Corporation do not make any distinction between permanent and temporary Govt, servant with respect to payment of pension to its employees. It is submitted that Respondent Chief of Administration has without applying his mind passed the impugned order in a mechanical way without taking into consideration the decision of the government in this regard. Over and above, learned Counsel also submits that apart from the grant of pension, other admitted retiral dues, details whereof have been mentioned in various clauses of paragraph 1 of the writ application, has not been paid as yet though the Petitioner retired as far back as on 30.11.1988. The other reliefs sought for have been enumerated in Clause (ii) (a) to (h) and (iii), which read thus: