IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3872 of 2006 DAROGA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02/ 12.05.2010 Heard Mr. Shambhu Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nividita Nirvikar, learned Government Pleader No. 16 for the State and Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General. The petitioner was appointed as Darban, a Class- IV post in I.D. Hospital, Agamkuan, Patna City, Patna on 6.10.1964. The services of the petitioner was subsequently transferred to Guru Govind Singh Hospital (L.H.V. School), Patna City, where he joined in the year 1964 and superannuated from the same place with effect from 30.06.1999 after serving the department for more than 34 years. It is indisputed that the services of the petitioner had been regularized with effect from 5.1.1973 and thus in the light of the said position, an order dated 25.1.2000 was issued from the office of the Accountant General (Annexure-2), authorizing pension and gratuity with effect from the date the petitioner was brought within the regular establishment i.e. 5.1.1973. The petitioner thus complains that as he had joined the service of the State with effect from 6.10.1964 and had continued interruptedly without any break rendering a total service period of more than 34 years, it is 2 wholly unreasonable on the part of the respondent authorities to have ignored his service rendered for the period prior to 5.1.1973. It is thus said that the entire service period right from his initial appointment i.e. 6.10.1964 may be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension and other pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the State and the Accountant General jointly submit that as the petitioner was brought within the regular establishment with effect from 5.1.1973, hence the pension has been calculated on that basis and that a prayer for pension for counting the service rendered on casual basis with effect from 6.10.1964 until his regularization does not come within the purview of qualifying service as envisaged under the Bihar Pension Rules. I have heard the rival contentions of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules provides three stipulations for the purpose of counting the service rendered by a Government servant as a qualifying service for the purpose of determination of pension and pensionary entitlement and which are as follows: (a) The service must be under Government; (b) The employment must be substantive and permanent; and (c) The service must be paid by Government. In the case of petitioner the service has been 3 continuous and right from the period 6.10.1964 until his superannuation. The remuneration was being paid by the State Government and as the petitioner continued on the Class-IV post, it had all the parameters of a substantive post. Apart from the aforesaid position, the very fact that the service rendered by this petitioner from 6.10.1964 until 5.1.1973 i.e. a period of more than eight years, was the basis for his regularization and for being brought into the regular establishment, I am of the opinion that the decision of the respondent-authorities including the State and the Accountant General ignoring the past service is not justified. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the stipulations of Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled for counting his services right from 6.10.1964 until his superannuation on 30.6.1999 as qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension and other pensionary entitlements. The writ petition is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)