KANHAIYA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4615/2007 by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding therein that the petitioner's services which he had rendered in the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna from 3.11.1969 to 1.2.1972 i.e. prior to joining a new service in Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department of the State of Bihar shall not be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. The learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petition relying on Rule 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules which is also applicable on the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department of the State Government and the said Rule clearly envisages that the resignation of the public servant or dismissal or removal and certain other circumstances which is not relevant for the purpose of resolving this controversy, would entail forfeiture of past service.

(2.) THE petitioner/appellant herein admittedly resigned from the services of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and the said resignation was without the approval of the competent authority. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the petitioner/appellant herein having resigned without approval, his services which he had rendered in the office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna should not be counted for the purpose of pension as it is barred by the said Rules.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant, however, assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the petitioner/appellant herein had applied for job in the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department with the approval of the competent authority in the office of Accountant General, Bihar at Patna. As his application had been approved he would be protected by Rule 101(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which states that if the resignation is with the approval of the competent authority then the past service which he had rendered in the office of Accountant General, Bihar, Patna would not be liable to be forfeited. However, the counsel is completely missing the infirmity in his argument as the Rule 101(b) does not indicate or mention protection of service from forfeiture if the application seeking new appointment is submitted with the approval of the competent authority. The relevant contention is with regard to the forfeiture of service.