RAM SURAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-Appellant retired from service on 31.8.1987 and then he preferred the writ petition before the Patna High Court, which was disposed of by order dated 24.3.1995, after taking note of the fact that the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Municipal Board for getting his retiral benefits and that application was pending before the Municipal Board, therefore, the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to seek remedy before the Municipality. The said writ petition was dismissed with the liberty by observing that nothing has been said in the order dated 24.3.1995 which should be construed as expression or opinion on the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner in his writ petition before the Patna High Court submitted that the Petitioner though has withdrawn the full amount of the provident fund, yet he is entitled to claim the pensionary benefits under the Rules. The Municipal Board vide Annexure-5 considered the Petitioner's claim with respect to all the retiral benefits including the pension and rejected the Petitioner's claim. Then, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties observed that the Municipality has considered the payment of post retiral benefits and from the order- Annexure-5 (referred above), it appears that the Petitioner has been paid the gratuity and his claim for pension and unutilized leave has been rejected on the ground that he is not entitled to the pens on on the reasons of that the provisions of pension came into force in the year 1991, whereas the Petitioner retired in the year 1987, and there is no provision for payment of unutilized leave in the Municipality. The learned Single Judge has held that the claim of the Petitioner for pension and unutilized leave has rightly been rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the Rules of 1987 i.e. the Municipality (Officers and Servant) Pension Rules 1987, and submitted that these Rules were made effective from 1.4.1986 and since the Petitioner retired from service on 31.8.1987, therefore, he was covered under the Rules of 1987 and the learned Single Judge committed mistake in observing that the Petitioner was not covered by the Rules of 1991. It is also submitted that under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1987, the Petitioner submitted the option opting for pension and therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to the pension under the Ruins of 1987.