IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9776 of 2006 RAGHAV PRASAD, SON OF LATE ADALAT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ITAWA, P.O. ITAWA, P.S. PACHRUKHI, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus 1. THE BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PATNA THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSEMBLY. 2. THE SPEAKER, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PATNA. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 5. THE FINANCE COMMISSISONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR R.BLOCK CROSSING, PATNA. 7. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, SIWAN. ----------- 07. 29.11.2010 Heard petitioner in person and the counsel for the Bihar Legislative Assembly. 2. Petitioner who served as member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly for the period between 1980-85 has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Legislative Assembly dated 26.7.2006, Annexure-2, whereunder his pension granted by the Legislative Assembly has been withheld with effect from 13.4.1993 on the ground that he is drawing pension from the Magadh University where he served as Reader for the period between 23.2.1976 till 30.9.2002. Payment of pension to the petitioner has been withheld with reference to the provisions contained in Bihar Legislature(Members’, Salaries, Allowances and Pension) (Amendment) Act, 1993(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Petitioner appearing in person submitted that aforesaid Amendment Act has been held to be prospective in nature by the Division Bench of this Court under orders dated 11.1.1994 passed in the case of professor Shiv Chandra Jha, C.W.J.C. No.3423 of 1992, - 2 - Annexure-1 in which Division Bench held that University teachers who served as Legislature are entitled to double pension. In this connection, relevant portion of order dated 11.1.1994 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :- “We hold that the relevant provision of the amending Act is prospective in nature and the petitioner shall be entitled to all relief accordingly even if as a result of the same, the petitioner will be entitled to get double pension. The Legislature has made the Act and the Legislature can amend the Act, if they think that there is any lacuna in the Act. It is not open to this Court to give any advice in this matter. The courts are only entitled to interpret the Act as it is.” 4. Petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition provisions of the Parent Act has again been amended in the year 2006 and in terms of the 2006 Amendment petitioner has again become entitled for grant of double pension with effect from 1.10.2006. 5. Counsel for the Legislative Assembly has opposed the submission. He states that under the 2006 Amendment petitioner may have become entitled for receipt of double pension but during the period between 13.4.1993 till 1.10.2006 he cannot be allowed to have double pension in view of the provisions contained in the Amendment of 1993. 6. Having heard petitioner and the counsel for the Legislative Assembly, I am of the view that in view of the clear order of this Court dated 11.1.1994, Annexure-1 interpreting 1993 Amendment Act petitioner is entitled for double pension even after - 3 - 13.4.1993 till the enactment of 2006 Amendment i.e. 1.10.2006 and in the light of the interpretation given by the Division Bench of this Court, the order passed by the Legislative Assembly contained in letter dated 26.7.2006, Annexure-2 appears to be contrary to the provisions of the 1993 Amendment, as has been interpreted by this Court under orders dated 11.1.1994, order dated 26.7.2006, Annexure- 2 is, accordingly, quashed. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)