LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.697 of 2004 Against judgment and order dated 20.5.2004, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.1416 of 2004. SURESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad of Mohalla Shivaganj, Bindeshwari Niketan, At & P.O. Narketiaganj, PS Shikarpur, Distt. West Champaran ….(Petitioner)- Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Information and Public Relation Department, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Director Information and Public Relation Department Bihar Old Secretariat, Patna 3. District Information and Public Relation Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah 4. Treasury Officer, Bettiah 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna 6. Secretary to Bihar Electricity Board, Patna …..Respondents ------------ For the Appellant: :Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha Senior Advocate Mr. Girish Nandan Prasad Singh Advocate For the State of Bihar :Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent no.6 : Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate JC to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S K Katriar, J. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 2-.5.2004, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1416 of 2004 (Sureshwar Prasad Srivastava v. State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and his prayer for grant of pension for the services rendered by him to the State Government has been rejected. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The petitioner was born on 2.6.1939. He was appointed in the services of the Bihar Government as Radio 2 Mechanic in the department of Information and Public Relations, on 7.10.1961 (Annexure 1/A). He was confirmed in the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 1.3.1970. Respondent no.6, the Bihar State Electricity Board, a public sector undertaking of the Bihar Government, had issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Technician tele-communication. The petitioner, who was then an employee of the Bihar Government, had submitted his application through the proper channel which was forwarded by the appropriate authority of the State Government, as is manifest from the inter-departmental communication dated 10.10.1977 (Annexure 3). The petitioner was selected for the post of Technician tele-communication. The petitioner thereafter submitted his application before the appropriate authority. The petitioner’s application was acceded to, and the appropriate authority relieved him to enable him to join the services of respondent no.6, as is manifest from the inter- departmental communicated dated 14.10.1977 (Annexure 5). The petitioner joined the services of respondent no.6, and after having rendered service about 16 years, superannuated with effect from 30.6.1999. Respondent no. 6 granted to him full pension for the period he had rendered service to it (respondent no.6). However, the Bihar Government denied to him the post-retirement benefits for the period he had rendered service to it (State Government), leading to the writ petition. Relying on the circular being F D Memo no.PC 11- 40-55/75-5190 F., dt. 30.4.1976, the learned single Judge has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of service rendered by him to the State Government. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the learned 3 single Judge. Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’) reads as follows :- “58. The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First - The service must be under Government. Second- The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third - The service must be paid by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following sub-sections.” It is evident on a plain reading of rule 58 that a servant of the Bihar Government shall qualify for pension if he fulfills three conditions, namely, the service must be under the Bihar Government, the employment must be substantive and permanent, and the service must be paid by the Government. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner who had rendered more than 15 years of service to the State Government in a substantive and permanent capacity and his salary was paid by the State Government. It is evident that the petitioner qualifies for pension from Bihar Government in so far as the terms and conditions of rule 58 of the Rules are concerned. This has to be read with clause-18 of Appendix 6, Part II, of the Rules which is headed “Important orders of the State Government regarding simplification of Procedure for Grant of Pension, Gratuities etc. and Expeditious Payment thereof ” :- “*fo"k; %&ok/kZD; isa’ku rFkk e`R;q&lg&lsok fuo`fr miknku dh Lohd`fr dh izfdz;k dk ljyhdj.kA xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “18.U;wure isa’ku ink;h lsok& orZeku fu;e ds vuqlkj LFkk;h ljdkjh lsod@vLFkk;h ljdkjh lsod ds fy, dze’k% U;wure isa’ku iznk;h lsok 10 ,oa 15 o"kZ fu/kZfjr gSA vc fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd nksuks Js.kh ds fy;s 10 o"kZ dh U;wure isa’ku iznk;h lsok ekuh tk;xhA” It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner has rendered more than 15 years of service in a permanent and substantive 4 capacity to the State Government. Furthermore, these provisions have to be read in the background of the inter-departmental communication marked Annexure-3 which creates a clear impression that the petitioner’s application was forwarded, and he was relieved by the State Government, to join the services of respondent no.6 with full and whole-hearted approval of the Bihar Government. Any approach on the part of the State Government resisting grant of post-retirement benefits to the petitioner for the period he served the State Government is unreasonable and unsustainable in law. The petitioner qualifies for post-retirement benefits from the State Government. We, therefore, disagree with the order of the learned single Judge. 4. In the result, this appeal as well as the writ petition are allowed. Respondent nos. 2 and 5 are hereby directed to ensure full pension and the post-retirement benefits to the petitioner for the period of service he had rendered to the State Government. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% from the date the amounts became due till the date of payment. ( S K Katriar, J. ) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) Patna High Court, Patna The 25th of November 2010 NAFR/mrl