Bhuwaneshwari Charan Lal vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 7 March, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bhuwaneshwari Charan Lal vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 7 March, 2014

The simple grievance of the petitioner is that from 1.1.2011 the respondents have started deducting Rs.1000/- per month from the pension of the petitioner which is impermissible in law. As per the petitioner's case, he retired on 30.4.1988 from the office of Chief Conservator of Forest while working on the post of Accounts Officer on attaining the age of 58 years.

The respondents have now treating the petitioner as pensioner of Bihar sought to deduct an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month allegedly paid as revision in pension from 1.1.2006, which is in teeth of the guidelines laid down under the Bihar Reorganization Act, more specific Section 53 read with 8th Schedule. As per the Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand, the petitioner was pensioner of Bihar, who retired in the year 1988 itself and because of an error, benefits of revision of pension which were extended to the employees of the State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 1.1.2006 was also extended to the petitioner. The employees of State of Bihar have been extended the said benefit of 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 1.4.2007. The amount paid between 1.1.2006 to 1.4.2007, erroneously totaling Rs.17,113, treating the petitioner to be pensioner from Jharkhand is only being sought to be deducted in easy installment by the respondent- Bank on the instruction of the Department.

Reference has been made by the petitioner as also by the respondents to the provisions of Section 53 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, under which the liability of the pension and other retirement benefits of the existing State of Bihar have been provided for and as per which it is to be apportioned between successor State of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provision of 8th Schedule of the act. In the present case the petitioner has retired in the year 1988 and obviously, was pensioner of existing State of -2- Bihar as his pension was sanctioned by the existing State of Bihar but incidentally was drawing pension from the State of Jharkhand. The admissibility to the revision in pension, in such cases would be dependent upon the implementation of the pay revision by the successor States from time to time. The State of Jharkhand has implemented the Vth Pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006 whereas the State of Bihar has implemented it w.e.f. 1.4.2007. The petitioner being the pensioner of existing State of Bihar having retired in the year 1988 itself can only be entitled to revision in pension accruable from 1.4.2007. In that view of the matter, the amounts which were erroneously paid between 1.6.2006 to 1.4.2007 has been sought to be recovered in easy installment by deducting Rs.1000/- per month from 2011 onwards. The scheme of the act as contained in Section 53 read with 8th Schedule lays down method of apportionment of liability. A retired employee, may be drawing his pension from either of the State but the admissibility of any such revision in pension would be dependent on the factor i.e. whether the person is a pensioner i.e. from the State of Bihar or Jharkhand as the case may be.

In the judgment at Annexure-5 in the case of Bharti Prasad Thakur Vrs. Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka & others reported in 2002(1) JLJR 491 relied upon by the petitioner, the pension of the said petitioner who had retired from the Godda College under the S.K.M. University in 1993 was stopped by the respondents university and the State of Jharkhand on the ground that he was receiving pension from Tilka Manjhi University, Bhagalpur till 2001. Therefore, it was contended that the responsibility of paying pension was of said University which falls under State of Bihar now . Considering the scheme under Section 53 read with 8th Schedule of the Act of 2000, the learned Single Judge at para 9 and 10 held that both the State shall taken decision regarding apportionment of and adjustment of liability but it is clear that pension of the retired employee may be given by the State of Jharkhand . However, it was clearly observed at para 10 that matter regarding the liability of the respective State of Bihar and Jharkhand are left open.

-3-

In the instant case the petitioner is getting pension from the State of Jharkhand as he had retired from the territory now falling in this State, but admittedly is a pensioner of the existing State of Bihar. The revision in pension under VIth Pay Revision Commission has been granted by the State of Bihar w.e.f 1.4.2007, therefore the petitioner was entitled to revision from 1.4.2007 and not from 1.1.2006 as has been granted by the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, the impugned action does not suffer from any error of law as well as on facts. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court