IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10125 of 2003 AKALI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Rabindra Nath Singh and Mr.Lok Nath Singh For the State: Mrs. Nilu Agarwal, G.A.-10 For the Accountant General: Anita Sinha ------ 4. 18.9.2008. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as maid servant in primary school, Chandwan running under the control of Municipal Board, Arrah in the year 1962 against a permanent post. She continued as such till take over of the school under section 3(1) of the Take Over Act. However, her pay scale was not fixed and she was being paid a paltry some of Rs.35/- per month. Therefore, she moved this court in C.W.J.C.3807 of 1991 which was disposed of by order dated 27.8.1999 vide annexure-2. This court while disposing of the writ petition found that payment of fixed salary of Rs.35/- per month to the petitioner was, in fact, an exploitation of human labour. Therefore, this court directed that she should be paid minimum salary of Class-IV employee in the school. The said salary was ordered to be paid with effect from Ist January, 1999 till she retires. The petitioner was paid that amount till she retired on 31.12.1999. However, as the pensionary benefit was not fixed and paid to her, she moved this court by filing the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The authorities have taken the stand that in terms of the order of this court in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, she has been paid a sum of Rs.43856/- towards her salary. However, in the counter affidavit the 2 respondents denied the entitlement of the petitioner towards pensionary benefits on the ground that she was not working on the sanctioned post and as through out her service career she was on fixed pay, she did not pay any contribution towards G.P.F. and Group insurance. Contesting the assertions made in the counter affidavit learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of this court passed by a Division Bench in the case of Nanhku Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2004(3) PLJR 769 in which in somewhat similar circumstances this court, noticing Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules read with the State Government Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779F dated 12th August, 1969 held that even if a government servant continuous on a temporary basis for more than fifteen years, he shall be entitled for pension. It would be proper to quote paragraph-3 of the said State Government Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779F dated 12th August, 1969 which is as follows: “The State Government after careful consideration have, therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the temporary or officiating government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than fifteen years, it should be considered as pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules.” The above decision of the State Government makes it amply 3 clear that if a government servant who is continuous on temporary or officiating basis and not confirmed in any post and completes fifteen years of service, his service shall be considered as pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in continuous service for much more than fifteen years. Even if the stand of the respondents is accepted that she was not working on any sanctioned post and, therefore, was not in regular employment, there cannot be denial from the fact that her status has to be treated atleast as temporary or officiating. In that view of the matter, the stand of the respondents- State authorities is fit to be rejected. This court holds that the petitioner is entitled for pension for the services rendered under the respondents. The petitioner’s pension shall be calculated and fixed and thereafter pension payment order shall be issued in her favour so that she may be able to get the amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. All arrears of pension of the petitioner from the date of retirement till the date of payment shall be paid to her with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The principal and interest shall be paid to her in one lump sum within that period. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Md.S. (J.N.Singh,J.)