IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2525 of 2004 MOSTT.GANGIA DEVI W/O LATE GENA DOMA, R/O VILLAGE-MAIKI, PS-GARKHA, DISTT-CHAPRA---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA 3. COLLECTOR, SARAN 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, SARAN 5. B.D.O. GARKHA BLOCK, SARAN-----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6 24.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents to pay her post retiral dues like gratuity, provident fund, Group Insurance and Leave Encashment etc. Petitioner’s stand is that on the death of her husband vide an order dated 23.7.1990 she was appointed on compassionate ground in the pay scale of Rs. 775- 1025/-. Thereafter she served the respondents and superannuated on 31.5.2004. When nothing came to be done by the respondents the present writ application was filed. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 has come to be filed. A stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner was on a daily basis and her payments were made from the contingency of the office. She was never on regular establishment and her services were never regularized. That is the reason why the respondents have difficulty in accepting the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefit. Prima facie on perusal of annexure-1 as well as the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit was not reading in harmony. The incongruity was obvious because the - 2 - order dated 23.7.1990 contained in annexure-1 shows that the appointment was on compassionate ground after the death of her husband and a pay scale was also indicated. It was in this background the Court directed the respondents to produce the original file in relation to appointment of the present petitioner. In the background to the same learned counsel for the State has taken the Court through various notings in the file from which it is apparent that not only the petitioner but even her husband was not on the permanent roll of the respondents. There are many correspondences and recommendations for regularizing the services of such employees but no final decision came to be taken in this regard. The noting in the file is absolutely clear. The fact is further corroborated from the application of the present petitioner for her claim of payment of salary for having worked for all the days of the month, instead of 26 days which excludes holidays and Sundays. In other words, annexure-1 even though on the face of it gives an impression that the petitioner was appointed on a permanent basis by giving her a pay scale but the corresponding evidence shows that she was never a permanent employee and therefore she cannot be given the benefit of post retiral dues and pension. In view of the stand taken by the respondents coupled with the evidence emerging from the records, the petitioner has not made out a case for direction upon the respondents for payment of retiral dues. It is however, clarified - 3 - that if there are any deductions made towards contributory provident fund then the respondents will take steps for such payment to the petitioner at the earliest. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)