IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2350 of 2010 ====================================================== 1.Uttam Kumar son of Sri Narayan Lal, R/o Vill-Khusrupur, P.S.- Khusrupur, Patna. 2.Manoj Kumar Gupta son of Late Birendra Pd., Vill.Devi Sthan, Bihar Road, P.O.+P.S.- Hilsa, Nalanda. 3.Dhirendra Kumar Jha son of Late Kamla Kant Jha, R/o Vill.- Kahara, P.S.Saharsa, Saharsa 4.Binod Kumar Singh s/o Brahma Singh, R/o Vill.Baruna,P.O. Mahima, P.S.Bhabua, Disst.Kaimur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Deepak Kumar, The Secretary Department of General Administration(Personnel and Administrative Reforms Deptt.) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Vijay Kumar Verma, The Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner Department of Social Welfare Govt. of Bihar. 4.Dr.N. Vijay Laxmi, The Director, Integrated Chield Development Services (I.C.D.S.) Indira Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5.R.J.M.Pillai, Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. ... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandit For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Binita Singh, S.C.28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18 16-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. In pursuance of the order dated 21.7.2017 the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna are present in person. A query had been made by this Court calling upon the functionaries to file a show cause by which they were to clarify as Patna High Court MJC No.2350 of 2010 (18) dt.16-08-2017 2/3 to whether the petitioners who were appointed in the year 2009 on contractual basis and subsequently regularized w.e.f. the date of their appointment, by order dated 12.02.2015 by Memo No.715 and which has been brought on record by Annexure-A to the show cause filed by O.P.No.4, were entitled to the Old Pension Scheme. It appears from paragraph 13 of said Annexure-A that the petitioners who are appointed in pursuance of advertisement No.01/1990 in the Department of Social Welfare (I.C.D.S.) in the year 2004 and were being directed to be brought in the regular scale of the said post like the other who had been appointed earlier could only avail the benefit of the C.P.F.. The said decision was in accordance with the direction of the Finance Department contained in Resolution No.630 dated 21.01.2010. It appears that in the present show cause filed today vide Annexure-E and F series, certain details have been brought before this Court which indicates that deduction in the C.P.F. have been made in the case of the present petitioners from the date they were regularised. It thus appears that the contribution also must have be made by the State. Counsel for the State, thus, submits that since the petitioners were not in service prior to 2004 on which date the old pension scheme became obsolete and the new pension scheme Patna High Court MJC No.2350 of 2010 (18) dt.16-08-2017 3/3 came, the present petitioners have been come into regular service only w.e.f. 2009 could not be, by any stretch of imagination granted the benefits of the old pension scheme. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by the decision as has been directed in the case of the Drug Inspector which was disposed of on 16.11.2013 in L.P.A. No.589 of 2013. The contention, however, cannot be put to test in the present contempt application. Be that as it may, the petitioners, if so advised, may raise their grievance in an appropriate proceeding. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also after perusal of the various documents annexed with the present contempt application, it appears that there has been substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. The grievance of the petitioners with regard to non- compliance, thus, to this Court, seems misconceived. In the result, the contempt application is disposed of. AnilKrSinha/- (Anjana Mishra, J) U