ANIL KUMAR SAHA SON OF LATE ANANT PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA-ANANDPURI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COMMISSIONER, GOVT.OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as an Assistant Accountant in Bihar State Agro Industry Development Corporation Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Corporation) with effect from 25.3.1968. He earned promotion to the post of Accountant in the year, 1972 and thereafter as Junior Accounts Officer from 25.5.1979. The Corporation in question is in instrumentality of the State and is a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. When the Corporation fell in bad times the Government of Bihar by way of a policy decision tried to absorb the surplus staff in various departments or in other Corporations or undertaking on various posts. A decision in this regard was taken way back in the year, 1984. Petitioner came to be posted under what was known as Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board where he worked and came to be permanently absorbed on 14.3.1990. Petitioner superannuated from Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. The reason for the petitioner approaching this Court is that the erstwhile Marketing Board which now stands dissolved and vested in the State of Bihar has worked out the retiral benefit only for the period he has rendered service under the Marketing Board and they refused to take cognizance of the earlier period of service which was rendered by him under Agro Industry Corporation. When the petitioner approached the High Court earlier on this issue, by way of a writ application, namely, CWJC No. 11988 of 2002 he was directed to file a detailed representation before the Marketing Board. But the said representation was rejected vide order dated 24.5.2003 which is under challenge in the present writ application.

(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no way the earlier period of service of the petitioner can be wished away. No doubt, he entered in service under a Corporation but it was a policy decision of the State Government to thereafter depute him and assign him work under the Marketing Board and there has never been any break in service all along. If a substantial period of service rendered by the petitioner is ignored then it has serious consequence for him in working out the post retiral dues.