CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1704 OF 2002 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------- BIRMUNI PRASAD S/O LATE DIP NARAYAN MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE NEEMA, PS. DHANARUA, DISTT- PATNA--- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS 3. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA---- ------------ Respondents) ---------- For The Petitioner :M/S. AMARNATH BANERJEE & ARUP KR.CHONGDAR,ADVOCATES For The Respondent :Mr.s.B.Kumar, SC-16 & Rajeev kumar JC to SC-16 --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Annexure-10 dated 19.7.2001 under challenge was passed by the District Magistrate, Patna rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit as per the direction of the High Court dated 19.3.2001 passed in CWJC No. 3556 of 2001. The claim of the petitioner is that he had worked under the Census Department, Government of India for certain period starting in the year, 1971. This engagement was purely casual/temporary in nature and keeping the nature of work in the Census Department, on completion of the census, he and many other persons were retrenched. A legal battle was waged by many a persons based on a circular of Government of India. It was asserted that retrenched employees of 1981 census deserve preference in matter of appointment under the State Government. A Division Bench, thereafter a Full Bench in its decision rendered - 2 - in the case of Jai Govind Prasad & Ors vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 65 did hold that such retrenched employees would be given preference in recruitment by the State Government when occasion for appointment on substantive post arose. Petitioner earned his employment under the District Magistrate, Patna on 8.10.1997 on a substantive post. He superannuated in about three years time from 31.12.2000. After retirement he asserted his right for grant of pension by including such period of service which he had rendered under Census Department from time to time. When he did not get any relief he approached the High Court in CWJC No. 3556 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.3.2001 directing the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned order which finally came to be done on 19.7.2001 and is annexure-10 to the writ application which the petitioner challenges. According to the petitioner if the period he had rendered service under Census Department in whatever capacity is added up read with the direction of the Full Bench that the retrenched employees of 1981 census would be given preference in the matter of appointment with effect from 1.6.1992 is considered coupled with the provisions relating the qualifying service as has been brought on record as annexure-6, the petitioner adds up the figure of 12and half years. But needs only 10 years of service to beget him the benefit of pro-rata pension. The Court has gone through the decision rendered - 3 - by the District Magistrate. It does not find any error of judgment or logic in reaching conclusion. Only a trapeze artist can fill in gap between the vast period when the petitioner had rendered service in snatches before the Census Department till he finally got a substantive appointment, the Court has difficulty in declaring the order passed by the District Magistrate to be erroneous. Petitioner wants the Court to create a legal fiction based on Full Bench decision that even if he was appointed on the substantive post from 8.10.1997 his appointment ought to be treated from 1.2.1992. The Court does not appreciate the position of such submission because the observation of the Full Bench to give preference in appointment from 1.6.1992 does not mean that all such persons ought to be appointed from 1.6.1992. Appointment had to follow thereafter. As the petitioner has rendered only three years of service after substantive appointment under State authority, he cannot be allowed benefit of pension by any interpretation. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be not order as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 19th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr. Secy.