IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14728 of 2011 Devsharan Manjhi son of Late Sugam Manjhi, resident of Village Patrauna, P.O. Hardia, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department. 3. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 6. The District Education Officer, Siwan. 7. The Headmaster, Shrikrishna High School, Kailgarh, Siwan. 8. The Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 16.9.2011. Heard Shri Ravi Bhushan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Kumari, learned A.C. to G.P.15, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 7/State of Bihar and Shri Uday Kumar, elarned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.8/Accountant General. The petitioner has prayed for directing the respondents to count his service from the date when he was engaged as daily wages earner and also has prayed for quashing of an order passed by respondent no.8/Accountant General, whereby claim of petitioner for grant of pension was refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that petitioner was engaged as daily wage earner from the month of August,1982 and subsequently, a panel was prepared for appointing daily wage earner. It has further been prayed for counting the service with effect from the date when the person, who were junior in panel, was appointed and their services were counted for pensionary service. The petitioner was initially engaged as daily wage earner in the year 1982. Subsequently, in the year 1986, a panel was prepared for appointing daily wage earner and in the said panel, petitioner’s name was at Sl.No.56. Ignoring the seniority of the petitioner in the said panel, the authority concerned had appointed persons junior to him. However, the petitioner was appointed in the month of June,2000. It is not in dispute that before completion of ten years of service, the petitioner retired and finally, the Accountant General/respondent no.8 refused to grant pension to the petitioner on the ground that he had not completed ten years i.e. minimum requirement of paying pension. So far as the claim of the 3 petitioner regarding appointment of the persons junior to the petitioner is concerned, the court is of the opinion that at this stage, this point cannot be examined or considered by this Court. The petitioner was appointed in the month of June,2000 and at that very time, it appears that no grievance was raised by the petitioner. Fact remains that petitioner had not rendered service for ten years and as such the Accountant General has rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension. In view of the fact that petitioner had not completed pensionable service, the Accountant General has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Similarly, since earlier the petitioner was only daily wage earner, such period shall not be counted for pensionable purpose. In view of the facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)