NANDJI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred mainly because of inaction on the part of the respondents in not condoning the interruption period in the service of the present petitioner. Petitioner served as a Clerk in the Office off District Land Settlement Officer, Arrah, Bhojpur from 28th of March, 1969 to 11th of December, 1972. Thereafter, as there was no work and as the petitioner was surplus. The service of the present petitioner was brought to an end, by way of retrenchment. Thus, for the reasons beyond the control of the present petitioner, earlier services as a Clerk rendered at the District Land Settlement Office, Bhojpur (now within State of Bihar) was retrenchment. Thereafter, petitioner appointed as Jail Warder with respondent authority with effect from 23rd August, 1973 till he reaches, the age of superannuation i.e. up to 31st of July, 2002. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that thus, interruption between the two services rendered with the Government is approximately eight months and, therefore, if this two services are joined together by condoning interruption as envisaged under Rule 105 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (now Jharkhand Pension Rules) enacted under first Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's services would be of thirty two years, seven months and twenty two days which will be considered, for the pension purposes, equal to thirty three years and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for full pension. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the concerned respondent authority and, therefore, if a report given by the concerned respondent authority which is at Anntxure -3 which would have been properly appreciated, his service would have condoned by condoning the interruption and the petitioner would have been entitled to full pension.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for condonation of interruption period mainly for the reasons that he is not falling under Rule 105 of the Bihar Pension Rule (now Jharkhand Pension Rules). Looking to the affidavit in reply/counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that several doubts have been raised about the nature of previous services as per paragraph -15 of the counter affidavit.