IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2831 of 2006 SHEO KUMAR SINGH, son of Late Rajpati Singh, resident of village-Dhanar, P.O. Dhanar, P.S. Sikandara, (Chandradeep), District-Jamui, Retired Headmaster, Primary School, Palsa Khurd, Anchal- Aligarh, District-Jamui Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Primary Secondary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger 4. The District Magistrate, Jamui, District- Jamui. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamui, District-Jamui 6. the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui, District-Jamui 7. The Area Education Officer, Jamui, District –Jamui 8. The Headmaster, Middle School, Simaria Bishanpur, Anchal- Chankai, District-Jamui. 9. Binod Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, the then Dealing Assistant, Pension Branch, in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui, District-Jamui & ORS ----------- 10 15.03.2010 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhashkar Shanker, learned A.C. to G.P 12 for the State and Mr. Amar Nath Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General and Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee learned counsel for the respondent No.12, the State of Jharkhand. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at 2 the stage of admission. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the District of Dhanbad of the unified State of Bihar and consequent upon his appointment he submitted his joining on 21.1.1970. The school in which the petitioner was appointed was a primary school owned and controlled by the District Board and was taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1971 under the resolution No. 763 dated 9.2.1973 of the State of Bihar. It is stated that pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for the appointment against the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary school, Palsa Khurd, Anchal Aliganj District- Jamui and was selected for the aforesaid post. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Headmaster of the said Primary School and superannuated with effect from 31.1.2004. Indisputably, the retiral benefits of the petitioner has been paid by calculating his service period with effect from 26.11.1976 being the date of which he joined at the Primary school, Palsa Khurd, Anchal Aliganj District- Jamui until his 3 superannuation on 31.1.2004. the petitioner though submitted his representation for counting the period of service rendered by him in the Middle School, Parwad Anchal- Jharia in the District of Dhanbad with effect from 21.1.1970 until 25.11.1976 as qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension and other pensionary entitlements but the same was not accepted leading to the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner has not placed on record either his appointment order or any order in relation to the service rendered by him in the Middle School, Parwad Anchal- Jharia in the District of Dhanbad except a certificate issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad contained in memo No. 710 dated 8.4.2004(Annexure-6) in which he has certified the deductions from the salary of the petitioner for the period 1.1.1971 to 25.11.1976. The letter further certifies that during the said period the petitioner was working in schools falling within the Jharia Block. As the sole basis for relief on which the petitioner relies is the document issued by the District Superintendent of Education, 4 Dhanbad, hence under the orders of this Court, the State of Jharkhand was added as respondent No.12 to the proceeding and the copies of the pleadings were served upon Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the newly added respondent no.12 and in which although some dispute was raised on behalf of the authorities as regarding the functioning of the petitioner at Dhanbad despite being appointed at Jamui but the authenticity of the document placed at Annexure-6 was not doubted rather Mr. Mukherjee on instructions submits that the document placed at Annexure-6 is a genuine document demonstrating the period served by this petitioner. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner did endeavour to repel the allegations by submitting that the example cited by the authorities were relatable to some other person of the same name and not the petitioner. He submits that the authorities without verification of the parentage had set out such an allegation without satisfying 5 themselves. As the said issue is not an issue for adjudication in this proceeding this Court would neither express any opinion nor deal with the same. Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules inter alia provides that a service to be treated as a qualifying service should be under the State Government, it should be against a substantive post and it should be paid by the State Government. All the three pre requites for a period to be treated as a qualifying service stands satisfied in the case of the petitioner in the light of the statement and submissions made by learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and in the backdrop of Annexure-6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The concerned authorities of the State of Bihar are directed to recalculate the pension and pensionery entitlement of the petitioner by calculating his service with effect from 1.1.1971 being the date on which the schools run by the District Board were taken over by the State Govt. until his superannuation on 31.1.2006 and make payment of the arrears admissible to the 6 petitioner. The exercise should be completed expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )