IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15175 of 2008 Jibachh Thakur, Son of Birju Thakur, Resident of Village Balia, Police Statioin Raiyam, District Madhubani, Retired from the post of Excise Clerk at Madhubani. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Patiyala, Govt. of Punjab, Chandigarh. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ------------ Respondents ----------- 2 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That, the Petitioner has come before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the Retiral Benefit of the Petitioner counting his service from 30.7.1968 and to give him all consequential benefit with statutory interest adding 9 years service made at Patiala, Government of Punjab.” The petitioner claims certain benefit of addition to qualifying period of service for getting higher pension in the State of Bihar on the basis that he had earlier served in the Government of Punjab. The counsel for the petitioner in fact has laid great stress 2 on the initial order of his appointment dated 4.1.1977 which goes to show that his lien was left intact with the Government of Punjab. If the petitioner’s lien was left in Punjab, he would not be entitled for grant of any pension from the State of Bihar, inasmuch as, his services in this State will be deemed to be on deputation basis and a borrowing employer is not supposed to pay the pension. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would clarify and in fact is also supported from an order of this Court dated 8.8.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2003 that the petitioner’s services ultimately were absorbed in the State of Bihar by terminating the lien of the Government of Punjab. Once this position becomes clear, this Court can not take any different view, inasmuch as, same prayer of the petitioner was earlier rejected by an order dated 8.8.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2005, wherein it was held as follows:- “C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2002 Jibachh Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. The petitioner claims that his service rendered at Patiala (Punjab) from July 1968 to February 1977 should have also been taken into account for computation of his pension pursuant to his 3 retirement from service from the employment of the State Government on 31.3.2003 as Excise Clerk. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition a bald statement is made that the petitioner was transferred from Patiala to Madhubani and he joined the service at Madhubani on 4.2.1977. The statement regarding transfer from Patliala to Madhubani is quite extra-ordinary because transfers are normally not made from one State Government service to another State Government service and unless the statement is supported by any document it cannot be accepted. No document has been annexed in support of the statement that the petitioner came from Patiala to Madhubani on being transferred Evidently. It was a case of fresh appointment. It appears that the claim of the petitioner was also rejected by the Accountant General for want of any relevant materials supporting it. That being the position, no relief, as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, can be granted to him. This writ petition is dismissed.” Thereafter, even a review application was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected by an order dated 27.8.2008 in C. Rev. No. 155 of 2003 in the following terms:- “C. Rev. No. 155 of 2003 JIBACHH THAKUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. This review application has been 4 filed for review of the order dated 8.8.2003 passed C.W.J.C. No. 6605 of 2003. As per the materials available on record no error appears to have been committed in that order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently he has been able to procure the original order of his transfer from the Punjab Government to Bihar Government and therefore he is in a position to establish that his transfer is a valid one with the consent of both the State Government. In view of this new development, the petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh writ application in the matter. This review application is dismissed.” In view of the fact that in this writ application also the petitioner has not enclosed much less brought on record his order of transfer from State of Punjab to State of Bihar, his writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. Counsel for the petitioner, however, draws attention of this Court to a certificate dated 20.10.2003 which is not a transfer order and in fact reads as follows:- 5 “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. It is certified that as per service record Shri Jibachh Thakur S/o Shri Birju Thacker was appointed as Clerk in Excise and Taxation department (Punjab) on 30.7.1968 and he served in this department up to 28.2.1977. His job was pensionable. Dated 20/10/2003 Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Patna 20.10.2003” In the opinion of this Court, the said certificate issued by the Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Patna, even if held to be that of Patiala as stated in paragraph no.16 of the writ application will be of no avail, inasmuch as, the same only says that the services of the petitioner in the State of Punjab was pensionable. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also not lay hand on any mutual arrangement between the State of Bihar and the State of Punjab as with regard to the reciprocity as with regard to exchanging the pensionary liability between the employees of the two States as the two States are entirely different and controlled by two separate authorities. In that view of the matter, the 6 petitioner now must give up his claim for his computation of service rendered in Punjab towards his pension that he is receiving in the State of Bihar. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)