IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10381 of 2011 Md.Ibrarul Haque SON OF LATE MD. NASIR KHAN RESIDENT SURAJPURA, P.S. SURAJPURA, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. ---------------------------------- 2 12/09/2011 Petitioner is seeking parity in matter of grant of time bound promotion as well as payment of retiral dues etc. by taking into consideration the period he has worked in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the B.S.R.T.C.). According to the petitioner he was initially appointed in a substantive capacity to work as a Conductor in B.S.R.T.C. with effect from 23.09.1981. When large number of such persons were found to be in excess or redundant, many of them were permitted to be absorbed in other departments of the State Government and he too vide memo no. 3528 dated 7.7.1997 was allowed to join service of the State under Rural Development Department which he joined with effect - 2 - from 15.07.1996. Petitioner was Junior Accounts Clerk who reported for work in the district of East Champaran at Motihari. The question which has been raised by the petitioner in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of past service from the period 1981 till he joined the post under the State in the year 1996 because according to him, he had worked under a Government Corporation and the Government Corporation permitted him to go and join the State government in the background of a scheme of absorption of the employees of the Corporation; meaning thereby that neither it was a case of resignation nor a case of petitioner voluntarily taking up a new assignment by abandoning the first. The Court is not required to go into all the nitty- gritty of the arguments and submissions; especially in view of the decision which has already been rendered by a learned Single Judge in an identical situation in the case of Priya Ranjan Sharma. This was a writ application filed by Mr. Sharma for similar relief and vide annexure-8 dated 22.01.2010 the writ application - 3 - was allowed with a direction upon the respondents to extend the benefit of past service to that petitioner for the period he had worked under the B.S.R.T.C. Petitioner has also annexed a communication made by the Deputy Secretary of the Rural Works Department addressed to the District Magistrate, Motihari contained in annexure-9 and taking note of the decision rendered in annexure-8 which is the case of Priya Ranjan Sharma a direction was issued to implement the said order. In other words, the decision of the learned Single Judge was implemented and carried out leading to accrual of benefit to the said petitioner. Court has gone through the order of the learned Single Judge contained in annexure-8 and 9 to the writ application. The background to the claim of the petitioner seems to be identical. The reasoning and the rationale given for allowing that writ application shall be available to the present petitioner as well and this petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of grant of such relief. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the existence of annexures 8 and 9. If that be so, then this petitioner too shall be entitled to benefit of service - 4 - spent by him in B.S.R.T.C. earlier and that period shall be computed for reckoning the pensionary benefit just like Priya Ranjan Sharma. This writ application is allowed with a direction that the respondents shall take steps for settlement of pensionary benefit of the petitioner by including the period spent by him from the year 1981 under B.S.R.T.C. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)