Letters Patent Appeal No.613 OF 2001 - - - - - Against the judgment and order dated 27th April 2001 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 10373 of 1998. - - - - - - - BIHAR PENSIONERS'SAMAJ & ANR-----------Appellants. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS------------------Respondents. _ _ _ _ _ _ For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advoate. For the State : N o n e . P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD. - - - - - - Barin Ghosh,J & C.M.Prasad,J Heard learned counsel for the appellants. In the writ petition filed by the appellants representing the retired State government employees, who are entitled to receive pension from the Government, the main thrust was that the State Government though followed the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Revision Commission, as was accepted for the Central Government Employees, and though the Central Government employees entitled to receive pension got benefit of revision with effect from 1st January 1996, but the State Government employees entitled to receive pension, obtained the benefits of revision with effect from 1st April 1997 for no just reason. There were - 2 - other incidental issues. The incidental issues were gone in and were found to have been sorted out by the State Government upon acceptance of recommendations of the Pay Fitment Committee. Accordingly, the learned Judge had nothing to do in relation to those incidental issues. In so far as the main issue is concerned, i.e., grant of actual benefit with effect from 1st January 1996 in stead of 1st April 1997, the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Bihar Pensioner Samaj Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996(2) PLJR 893. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, felt that the said judgment may not be applicable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Ratan Behari Dey, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 62. Before us, it was contended on behalf of appellants that in the case of State of West Bengal Vs Ratan Behari Dey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court only pronounced that it is the prerogative of the employer to lay down the principles governing the service conditions of its employees and as has been pointed out at Paragraph-7 of the reported judgment of - 3 - the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Pensioners Samaj Vs. The State of Bihar (supra), the State Government in the matter of laying down the conditions of service of its employees has been following in toto the decision taken by the Central Government in relation to its employees and there had been and has been no reason for making a departure as has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Bihar Pensioner Samaj Vs. State of Bihar (supra). The Division Bench at Paragraph-4 of the judgment rendered in the case of Bihar Pensioners Samaj Vs. State of Bihar (supra) has observed that it is open to the State Government to revise/rationalize its pension scheme either on the same pattern as followed by the Government of India or to frame its own scheme and also to fix a cut-off date. That observation made is absolutely clear and which appears to us to be the law that the State Government even after following the central government pattern could deviate therefrom while fixing the cut-off date of giving effect to the revision. However, despite such observation, the petitioner, Bihar Pensioner Samaj, succeeded before the Division - 4 - PatnaHighCourt Dt. 21st Aug,08 N.A.F.R. Jay/ Bench inasmuch as, as it appears from Paragraph-2 of the said judgment, on 19th April 1988, the Cabinet decided to give benefit of revision with effect from 1st of January 1986 and thereupon postponed the same to 1st March 1989 and, accordingly, the real question that cropped up for decision in that case was whether having had decided to revise the pension with effect from 1st January 1986 on the central pattern, the State Government had any justification to postpone the same to 1st March 1989. All observations made in the said judgment must be looked at in the backdrop of the said set of facts. In the instant case no decision of the State Government has been highlighted before us which would suggest that at any point of time, the State Government had decided to give the benefit of revision of pension with effect from 1st January 1986 and thereupon purported to shift the same to 1st March 1987. In that view of the matter, we have no scope for interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J) - 5 -