IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14284 of 2011 Jayant Kumar Lahiri S/O Late Dr.H.C. Lahiri R/O Vaishnavi Umagiri Apartment, Mainpura, P.S.-Patliputra, Distt.-Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah 2. The Project Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer, Nautan Block, P.O.- Nautan, Distt.- West Champaran, Bettiah 3. The Accountant General (A&E) XX, Bihar, Patna having his office in Birchand Patel Path, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Patna 4. The Treasury Officer West Champaran, Bettiah having his office in Collectorate Compound, Distt.- Bettiah ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha. For the State: Mr. Rana Bhupendra Nr. Singh, AC to GP 9. For the Accountant General : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha. ------- 07. 19.12.2011 The order under challenge in the present writ application is Annexure-4, which is dated 6.7.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah. This order has been passed in the background that petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No. 14028 of 2009 seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay him pension by computing the period petitioner had rendered service under the State as well as what is known as Bihar State Sugar Corporation. Petitioner initially joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the Collectorate of West Champaran at Bettiah on 9th September, 1964. He served in that capacity till 5th August, 1977 when he came to be appointed as an Office Superintendent under the Sugar Corporation. It was a substantive appointment based on advertisement issued by the said Corporation in a case of fresh selection to the post to which petitioner was found suitable. Petitioner 2 thereafter superannuated from service of the Corporation w.e.f. 28th December, 2004. His request for pension thereafter began by series of litigations raised by him before this Court on the plea that even though the petitioner joined the post of the Sugar Corporation, a State Public Sector Corporation, but that was so with due consent or approval of the State authorities. In terms of certain circulars the petitioner continued to perform ‘public duty’ first as a civil servant under the State and second under the Sugar Corporation as an Office Superintendent. Counsel for the petitioner tries to impress upon this Court that the decision and the so-called circular which is PC-11-40- 56-75-5190/F dated 30th April, 1976 issued by the Finance Department has no applicability to the present bundle of facts because the primary reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the District Magistrate is the said circular which has been quoted in the impugned order and is reproduced hereinbelow: “In the case of a Government servant who is elected for appointment in an autonomous body (including public undertakings) on the basis of his own application, the transfer should not be deemed to be in the public interest and Government will not accept any liability to pay any retirement benefits or for carry forward or leave for the period of service rendered under Government.” There are no disputes with regard to the factual matrix 3 involved in the present case. Petitioner does not deny that he applied for the post of Office Superintendent when advertisement was issued by the Corporation and he was selected by the said Corporation and appointed way back in the year 1977. Prior to that he was only an Assistant in the Collectorate at West Champaran. Therefore, obviously the post of Office Superintendent was more exalted in position both in terms of perks, privileges and the pay. From the very nature of the two assignments it is evident that petitioner wanted to opt out of the Government service for going to a higher post even though it was a Public Sector Undertakings under the State. Since the petitioner is a literate person, therefore, the Court can fairly presume that he understands the meaning of the advantage of a Government service and the resultant rules, which protect him vis-à- vis an appointment under the Public Sector Undertaking. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is based on the contention that the petitioner was permitted to apply for the post against the advertisement and was permitted even thereafter to join. That indicates that petitioner had due tacit support of the State Government to perform duty of a public kind even before the Sugar Corporation. He must carry the advantage of such a consent or approval of the State. One thing which must be clarified by this Court is that petitioner retired as an employee of the Sugar Corporation. There is no provision for grant of pension under the Sugar Corporation whether the petitioner was permitted to join Sugar Corporation at the behest of the State or not is a contentious issue but it makes no 4 difference because after superannuation he cannot be treated to be an employee of the State for any purpose. If there is no scheme for payment of pension under the Corporation the submission or the issue raised by him is more academic than any thing tenable in terms of assertion of a right. The other aspect which this Court must record against the petitioner is that it is not one of those cases where petitioner was permitted by the State to go and serve yet another organization under the State, may be a Public Sector Undertaking because of the necessity of the State to facilitate such transfer to the Corporation. This is a clear case of voluntarily giving of service by the petitioner at the District Collectorate to take a higher responsibility on the basis of an advertisement issued by the Corporation. Prior permission or clearance of the State is required by a Government servant lest the petitioner would be owing large sums of money or may be involved in some acts of omission and commission which he wanted to avoid by opting out of service and circumstance of such kind therefore does compel the State to impose obligation on an employee to take prior permission. Grant of permission by itself does not mean that State allowed the petitioner to take yet another responsibility with the consent of the State as is not in the present case. Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent under the Corporation was a voluntary act of the petitioner and it was a new substantive appointment under the Corporation. Therefore, the superannuation of the petitioner from the post in question under the Corporation will only beget him the 5 benefit available to an employee of the Corporation. The State Government has no role to play nor does it have any obligation of any kind to extend the benefit of pension at all in the given facts. In the totality, therefore, the reasoning given by the District Magistrate for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not erroneous or unfounded. There is no merit in the writ application. Before parting counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be at least given the benefit for the service he has rendered with the State between the year 1964 to 1977. Since this was not the issue raised in the writ application but validity of Annexure-4 is the subject matter of challenge primarily in the present case, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to delve into the matter at all. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)