IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5198 of 2011 Hare Krishna Thakur SON OF LATE TAPESHWAR THAKUR RESIDENT OF RAGHUNATHPUR MADHUBAN, P.O. SILOUT, P.S. MANIYARI DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT) MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE TREASURY OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the State :- Mr. Kinkar Kumar, A.C. to G.P. XXV For the Accountant General :- Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad. ------ 2 26/07/2011 This is the second visit of the petitioner before the High Court. In the present writ application it is the speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner which is under challenge. The said order is annexure-17 dated 12.01.2011. This is the speaking order which has been passed by the District Magistrate on the direction of the High Court in the earlier writ application. Petitioner has superannuated. He made claim before the respondents to grant him full pension by accounting the period he worked in various capacities under the respondents between the year 1975 and 1988 which were temporary appointments in various capacities over the time period - 2 - indicated in the earlier part of the order. Substantive appointment of the petitioner came only in the year 1989 on the post of Clerk. He held that office till he superannuated. Question is whether the petitioner can be given the benefit of continuity of service for the kind of work he had done on various posts which he was engaged off and on, may be under the district administration. The Court has gone through the service details which have been taken note of by the District Magistrate in the present case between 1975 and 1988. Petitioner has worked in quite a few departments and that too ranging from one month to five months at the maximum. In other words, the petitioner has never worked at a particular post in continuity even as a daily wager on which he was finally absorbed or confirmed. If there are long gaps in the working of the petitioner in the engagements made by the respondents, those periods cannot be added for the benefit of continuity of service to calculate his pension. It is not a case that the respondents have not granted pension to the petitioner for the period he has - 3 - worked but then when it comes down to grant of full pension, obviously the periods of so called engagements do not add up in favour of the petitioner nor does the law. The reasonings assigned by the District Magistrate in his order contained in annexure-17 are not de hors the law. Therefore, no interference is required in the said order. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)