CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11571 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Article, 226 of the constitution of India) RAM CHANDRA TIWARI son of Jagarnath Tiwari, resident of village Tiwari Marthia, P.O.Tildag, P.s. Garhwa, District-Palamau ------------------------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and commerce Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd. Sone Bhawar Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 4. The Incharge Deputy Collector, District Consumer Forum, Buxar. ------------------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For The State : Mr. Md. Arif, A.C. to S.C.4 For the Corporation: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Tripathi, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Jyoti Saran,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for fixation of the monthly pension of the petitioner and for payment of the post retiral dues as found admissible to him as a State Government - 2 - employee, having superannuated from the services of the State Government with effect from 31.7.2003 as Class-IV employee. Brief summary of facts is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Night Guard on 16.12.1965. His services were terminated under the order dated 1.4.1972 with effect from 5.4.1972 only to be reappointed under letter No. 669 dated 1.5.1972 on the post of Nightguard with effect from 3.5.1972. The aforesaid facts are eloquent from the entries made in the service book appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Soon after the appointment of the petitioner his services were transferred to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and the petitioner whereupon joined the respondent Corporation with effect from 20.7.1973 against the Class-IV post. The petitioner since after his transfer to the Corporation served the same until 6.4.1997 when his services were returned back to the State Government under the order bearing memo No.2079 dated 31.3.1997 (Annexure-2) and the petitioner was posted as a Peon at the District Forum, Buxar. The name of the - 3 - petitioner appears at Serial No.40 of the order placed at Annexure-2. The petitioner since after his return to the services of the State Government continued to serve against a Class- IV post of Peon and superannuated with effect from 31.7.2003. Although the leave encashment amount and the provident fund amount was paid to the petitioner by the authorities of the State Government of Bihar but he was denied the payment of gratuity as also monthly pension. It is admitted by learned counsel for the Corporation that no amount by way of post retiral dues was paid to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation. Presumably, for the reason that the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and his services were never absorbed in the respondent Corporation. The position was also partially accepted by the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar who admittedly paid his leave encashment and the amount towards general provident fund but denied the pension and gratuity to the petitioner on pretext of having joined the Corporation and that as the service under the State Government was less than 10 years, he was - 4 - not entitled for either pension or gratuity in terms of relevant provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. That neither the lien of the petitioner stood terminated in the State Government nor the petitioner was either appointed or was absorbed in the respondent Corporation, is not in dispute. On the contrary the petitioner returned to the services of the State of Bihar in the District Forum, Buxar from where he superannuated on 31.7.2003, is sufficient explanation of the petitioner being a State Government employee. The said issue also stands concluded by an order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13026 of 2005 (Md. Leiaquat @ Leiaquat Ali Versus State of Bihar) disposed of on 20.11.2008 (Annexure-6) with a direction to the District Magistrate, Madhubani to take all possible steps for settling the dues of the petitioner within three months of the communication/production of a copy of the said order. The Case of the petitioner is identical to that of Md. Leiaquat Ali. The name of the said Md. Leiaquat Ali appears at serial No. 11 of the order under which the - 5 - services of the employees serving in the respondent Corporation was transferred back to the State Government for posting under different District Forums (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from the said position also submits that this Court while considering the case of Md. Leiaquat Ali had taken note of the fact that the person appearing at Serial No.25, namely Nathuni Miya was receiving retiral benefits from the State. He further submits that person appearing at Serial No.18, Mahabir Singh has also been accorded approval for payment of pension and gratuity as admissible to a State Government employee under the Bihar Pension Rules. Having regard to the situation that the services of the petitioner never got absorbed in the Corporation as admitted by the Corporation itself and the petitioner superannuated as a State Government employee and taking into consideration the Bench decision rendered in the case of Md. Leiaquat Ali (Annexure-6), I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed a dissimilar treatment. - 6 - Accordingly, the respondent No.3 the District Magistrate, Buxar is directed to process the pension and gratuity papers of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and after seeking authorization from the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, ensure the payment of the same within four weeks after receipt thereof. Having regard to the circumstances that this is a case of an employee retiring on 31.7.2003, it is expected that the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna would accord authorization without causing unnecessary delay. The petitioner would be entitled to raise his claim for balance amount of leave encashment and which should be considered by the District Magistrate and if the claim is found admissible, the same should also be paid to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be completed expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. - 7 - The writ petition is allowed with the directions aforesaid but in the circumstances there shall not be any order as to costs. Patna High Court/ Dated 20th April,2010/ Bibhash/A.F.R. (Jyoti Saran, J.)