IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.122 of 2005 SHREECHAND PD.SINGH S/O LATE MARUAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- NAGARI, PS- HAVELI KHARGPUR, DISTT- MUNGER---------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN OF BIADA-CUM-INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIADA, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, DARBHANGA 5. THE A.G., BIHAR, PATNA-----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh,Advocate For the State: Mr. S.S.Pd.Sinha,A.C. to GPIX For the BIADA: Mr. S.K.Sinha,Advocate For A.G.,Bihar: Mr. J.P. Karn, Advocate ------------ 5 20.3.2009 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the BIADA and the State of Bihar as well as the Accountant General, there is no occasion for this Court to direct the respondents Bihar industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter in short “BIADA”) or the State Government to pay pension to the petitioner at this stage because admittedly the petitioner was an employee appointed by BIADA and had worked under BIADA. But the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that at one point of time effort was made by the State Government through Bureau of Public Enterprises for extending the benefit of pension scheme to various corporations as would be evident from Annexure-9 dated 25th September, 1992. In response to the said communication the Board of directors of BIADA had taken a decision to consider extending of the benefit of pension scheme available to its employees subject to final decision in this regard by the Bureau of Public Enterprises/State Government. - 2 - This was way back in the year 1997 but it is not disputed that no final decision could be or has been taken in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a decision of the Board of Directors on this issue, in principle it is good enough ground for direction upon the respondents to pay him pension. But the Court has certain reservation in accepting such contention as a decision taken in file but never notified, cannot be said to attain finality. Learned counsel representing the respondents BIADA submits that they still do not have any pension scheme under their organization. They have a contributory provident fund scheme which the petitioner was a subscriber and his dues have been settled. If the State Government as a policy decision does notify that the benefit of pension would be available to State Corporations or for such other Bodies than they would be obliged to do so not otherwise. This writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar that they should take a policy decision on this score one way or the other so that the issue may be allowed to rest. In this regard the Court fixes a time frame of six months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)