IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.649 of 2011 --------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 28-1-2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8310 of 2010. ----------- Raju Kumar, S/o Shri Hari Shankar Prasad, R/o village- Ramdhan Dubey Tola, Bagaha, P.O. and P.S. Bagaha, District- West Champaran at Bettiah................................................ Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Primary & Secondary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna 5. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, West Champaran- Bettiah 7. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah 8. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran, Bettiah 9. The District Provident Fund Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah 10. The Block Education Extension officer, Bagaha-1, West Champaran- Bettiah 11. The Block Development Officer, Bagaha-1, West Champaran- Bettiah...................................................................... Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Mannan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Awanish Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R.S.Singh, A.C. to AAG-15 For the B.P.S.C. :- Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate. ------------- 3 2-8-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appointment letter contained in annexure-2 and also the order of this Court dated 14-7-2008 contained in annexure-1 whereby in writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3519 of 2001, a direction was issued to the State to consider the appointment of the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from 14-7-2008, the date of the order. That 2 order clarified that for the purpose of seniority the petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed on the date the persons immediately below him in the merit list of recommended candidates came to be appointed. The said order has been fully complied with as appears from appointment order contained in annexure-2 which is dated 30th August, 2009. The appointment order is absolutely clear in communicating that the appointment is from the date of issuance of the appointment letter and only for the purpose of seniority, the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed as per direction of the writ court. The claim of the appellant is that the benefit of General Provident Fund ( in short G.P.F.) should be made applicable to the appellant as it is available to appointees of the year 2000 who are below him in merit list. It is not in dispute that the scheme of G.P.F. has been replaced by a new scheme of C.P.F. on 1-9-2005, before issuance of appointment letter in favour of the appellant. In our considered view, when the writ court vide annexure-1, denied grant of salary to the petitioner from the date the person immediately below him is appointed and 3 contribution for the G.P.F. cannot be deducted from his salary for the earlier period which is not payable, it is practically not possible to grant such relief as prayed for. It is further found that the appellant has accepted the order of the writ court and also the appointment letter whereunder his appointment is not from any retrospective date but from the date of issuance of the appointment letter. On that day the service condition did not entitle him to benefit of G.P.F. Petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to any benefit which was not available under the service rule when he was appointed. Thus, we find that petitioner is not entitled even in law to any benefit which is not admissible under the Service Rules on the date of his appointment In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)