IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.310 of 2006 BRAJESHWARI PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06/ 21.04.2010 Heard Mr. Shobha Nath Jha for the petitioner, Mr. Dinu Kumar for the respondent-Nagar Parishad and Mr. Md. Ahmad Aslam Ansari, assisting counsel to SC 14 for the State. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the respondent Nagar Parishad with effect from 20.08.2001 while holding the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant. It is contended that though the petitioner represented for inclusion in the pension Scheme implemented in the Nagar Parishad under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 but his request was not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently acting on the representation filed by the petitioner in this context the Board of Directors of the Nagar Parishad vide resolution passed on 30.11.2004 (Annexure-4) directed the petitioner to be included in the Scheme subject to the payment of the entire amount received by him by way of contributory provident fund together with interest. Learned counsel submits that in the light of the said resolution the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 17,251/- which included the principal as well as the interest amount, on 01.10.2007 for necessary action on the part of the Nagar Parishad for making - 2 - payment of pension to the petitioner in terms of the stipulations made in the Scheme, but no steps were taken by the Municipality. It is this action of the respondents which compelled the petitioner to file the writ petition. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent- Nagar Parishad, with reference to the provisions as contained in Rule 4(i) of the Rules, submits that options were extended to the employees only for a period of 90 days from the implementation of the Rules and the petitioner never exercised his option for conversion from the C.P.F Scheme to the pension Scheme within the stipulated period hence the representation and the request of the petitioner could not be accepted. Learned counsel submits that even after the issuance of the Memo bearing No. 857 dated 7.11.2000 as annexed at Annexure-1 requiring the petitioner to take steps for being governed under the Scheme, he never opted to do so. Hence the grievance of the petitioner was not fit to be entertained and the writ petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverting the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the resolution of the Board of Directors as taken in the Meeting held on 30.11.2004 there remained no obstruction on the path of the Nagar Parishad in including the petitioner within the Scheme and in making payment of the pension and the respondents cannot resile from their responsibility. He further submits that in a - 3 - similar manner the respondents have extended the benefit of the Scheme to one Anil Kumar Singh, who also had exercised option like the petitioner beyond the stipulated statutory period. He thus submits that in view of the resolution of the Board of Directors coupled with the fact that the petitioner has deposited the amount received by him by way of contributory provident fund inclusive of interest as back as in the year 2007, acting upon the decision of the Board of Directors, the objections are completely misplaced. Learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad tried to distinguish the case of Anil Kumar Singh by submitting that whereas the said Anil Kumar Singh was still in service, the petitioner has superannuated and thus the cases of two employees cannot be equated. It is further contended that except the petitioner and the said Anil Kumar Singh all others had exercised their option for entering the pension Scheme. Having regard to the accompanying circumstances as well as the fact that it were only two persons i.e. the petitioner and Anil Kumar Singh who had extended their options belatedly and the respondent Nagar Parishad has accepted the request made by Anil Kumar Singh, it would be patently discriminatory on the part of the Nagar Parishad in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on grounds of belated exercise of option especially in the backdrop of the acceptance of the - 4 - claim of the petitioner by the Board of Directors as contained as contained in Annexure-4 and the fact that they have themselves accepted the claim of Anil Kumar Singh, who stands on identical footing. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the Pension Scheme in terms of the provisions thereof to the petitioner without any further delay. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)