IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12383 of 2007 Ram Pravesh Singh, Son of Late R.K. Singh, Resident of Village Laharpa, P.S. – Agaion, District – Bhojpur ------------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Patna, Bihar. 2. The Special Officer cum Deputy Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Executive Engineer, Sone Higher Canal Division, Patna. 4. The Treasury Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 5. The Deputy Collector, Canal Revenue Division, Mohania, Sasaram. 6. The Accountant General, Patna, Bihar. ---------- Respondents ----------- 3 21.07.2011 Heard Sri Rajendra Nath Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay remaining part amount of retrial dues as well as pension. It has been pleaded that petitioner was initially appointed as temporary Moharrir in the Revenue Division under the Department of Irrigation in the year 1966-67 and thereafter his service was regularized in the year 1990 vide Order No. 162/1990. It has been claimed that in similar circumstances a Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2002 passed in CWJC No. 11002 of 2002 (Gupteshwar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors) and other connected writ petitions had directed for giving pensionary benefits to such Moharrirs. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 wherein it has been stated that petitioner has 2 already been paid amount under the heads of group insurance, unutilized earned leave, G.P.F. and gratuity and pension paper of the petitioner was also sent to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna but same was returned by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna in view of the fact that petitioner had not completed ten years of service. Learned counsel for the State further submits that fact regarding non-completion of ten years of service by the petitioner is evident from Annexure -1 to the writ petition which is an order whereby petitioner was appointed on seasonal basis for a specified period alongwith others. Fact remains that petitioner retired with effect from 30.10.1999. Accordingly it has been argued that petitioner has not completed ten years of service which was minimum period for getting benefit of pension. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the material available on record. On the basis of pleading as well as Annexure -1 to the writ petition and the date of retirement which has been indicated by the petitioner in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition i.e. 30.10.1999, it is not in dispute that before completion of ten years of service petitioner had retired. So far order on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance i.e. Annexure – 4 to the writ petition passed in CWJC No. 11002 of 2002 is concerned, the court is of the opinion that once the petitioner has not completed minimum ten years of service which was necessary for elibility of pension the petitioner can not get 3 any advantage from the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 11002 of 2002. In view of the facts and circumstances the court is of the opinion that petitioner has rightly been not given pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)