IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1502 OF 2003 PRITHVINATH CHAUBEY, SON OF LATE JAGRANATH CHAUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSAHARWA, P.S.SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BETTIAH REVENUE DIVISION, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN, DISTRICT. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04 26.07.2011 Heard Mr. K. M. Joseph for the petitioner, and Mr. Saurendra Pandey, Assistant Counsel to SC 23, and Mr. J. P .Karn for the Accountant General. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of retirement and pensionary benefits including gratuity for having worked as a Seasonal Sangrahak for 39 years, from 1959 to 1998, in Bettiah Revenue Division of the Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner started working as a Seasonal Sangrahak way back in 1959 and continued as such till 1998. He thereafter made efforts for his continuance till the age of 58 years, and also for regularization of his services. Perhaps, petitioner’s grievance remained unattended leading to the present writ petition. It appears to us that the petitioner had last worked in 2 1998, and he filed the present writ petition on 07.02.2003 Hence his case for regularization is hit by delay. Secondly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karanataka & ors. Vs. Umadevi & ors. AIR 2006 SC 1806 was handed down on 10th April 2006, and it appears to us from the tenor of the judgment that the same is applicable to those of the employees who were working on the date of judgment. The petitioner could not derive any benefit from the judgment. We also do not find it possible to grant the benefit of post-retirement benefit to the petitioner because he never worked as a regular employee. Being a seasonal employee he had worked for a limited duration each year. Suppose for the sake of argument he has worked for some part of the year. A post- retirement benefit is inadmissible to such employees. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. psc (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)