IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.642 of 2005 SHATRUGHAN PRASAD RAM S/O LATE RAM DAS Ram @ RAM DAS TAMDI, R/O MOHALLA-GURHUATTA, NEAR MIDDLE SCHOOL PATNA CITY, PS- KHAJEKALA, DISTT PATNA--------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THORUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIADA, PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE A.G.(A&E)-II,BIHAR,PATNA--------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate For the State: Mr. S.S.Pd. Sinha,AC to GPIX For BIADA: Mr. S.K.Sinha, Advocate ----------- 6. 20.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The basic facts are not disputed that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Department of Industry and he worked under the State of Bihar from 18.1.1965 till 15.6.1978. Thereafter he was sent on lien to Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter in short as “BIADA”) where he worked from 16.6.78 till 31.10.2001 which also happens to be his date of superannuation. After his retirement some of the dues come to be settled by BIADA. But when it came to granting pension by the State they passed an order dated 13.12.2003 contained in annexure-10 rejecting the said claim. This is the background under which the present writ application has come to be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent State has taken inconsistent or unreasonable stand in such matters and there had been occasion for this Court to intervene or direct payment of pension to some of the employees similarly situated. In - 2 - support of his claim the petitioner has brought on record the order dated 7.3.2005 passed in the case of Upendra Thakur vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. which is CWJC No. 13821 of 2004. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State where they took a stand that they have taken the dispute of similar kind to Hon’ble Supreme Court. One of the cases was the case of Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter had come to decide the issue by its decision dated 2nd August, 2007. The order in question has been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ application. Perusal of the said order would show that the petitioner is entitled to pension for the period he rendered service under the State of Bihar and there is no occasion why the petitioner’s case should be treated separately or distinguishably. Learned counsel for the Industrial Development Authority have nothing to offer on this aspect on the legal stand raised or the factual position except that they have settled their part of the liability in favour of the petitioner. Since the question raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra, therefore the writ application is allowed. Annexure-10 is quashed. Direction is issued upon the Director, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar that he shall now settle the pension claim of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)