Patna High Court
Shreeniwas Poddar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 2017
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14897 of 2017
===========================================================
Shreeniwas Poddar S/o Late Kishun Lal Poddar, Resident of Sirsa Chowk, P.O.
Dalan, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Building Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer, (North) Building Construction Department, Government o f
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building
Circle, Purnea.
4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division,
Katihar.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Building Sub-Division No.1 Building Constructio n
Department, Katihar.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha and
Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-12-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and
Accountant General.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following
reliefs:
"(i) For a direction to the respondents to
grant pension to the petitioner who was duly
appointed by Respondent no. 4 as work charged
Chowkidar on 01.01.1982 and continued to work
till 31.10.2011, on which date he retired completing
about 30 years of his continuous service in the
Building Construction Department, Building Sub-
Divisional Office, Katihar and declare the service
of the petitioner in work charged Establishment
Pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension
Patna High Court CWJC No.14897 of 2017 dt.20-12-2017
2/3
Rules.
(ii) For a direction to the respondent
authorities to treat petitioner as an employee of
permanent establishment of the State in terms of the
Circular of the State Government contained in FD
memo no. 1344 dated 04.02.1949, a statutory rule
framed under Article 309 of the constitution of India
which envisages that such employee on completing
one year if continued approved service will be
included as permanent employee in the permanent
establishment whereas the petitioner had completed
30 years of continuous service in the work charge
establishment and also consider the petitioner a
regular employee for all intents and purpose in
terms of Government of Bihar official order vide
memo no. 13327 dated 29.06.1971.
(iii) For a direction to the respondents to
pay leave encashment and all retirement benefit i.e.
pension, gratuity, and the differences of salary of
the petitioner from date of appointment to date of
retirement since the petitioner was paid his basic
salary on regular basis throughout his service
career.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which
the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
drew the attention of the Court to order passed in the case of a
similarly situated employee Md. Matin in C.W.J.C. No. 24532 of
2013, which was allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
15.10.2014. Learned counsel submitted that Md. Matin had rendered about 31 years of continuous service in the work charge establishment whereas the petitioner has put in almost 30 years in the work charge establishment. He further drew the attention of the Court Patna High Court CWJC No.14897 of 2017 dt.20-12-2017 3/3 to a judgment dated 23.06.2016 in L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2015, by which the challenge to the order dated 15.10.2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 24532 of 2013 was rejected. He also referred to the order of the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Saraswati Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 21724 of 2012 dated 21.04.2015 and also the judgment passed in the case of Pramod Jha vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 10897 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016, as well as in the case of Ram Shankar Pandey vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 11846 of 2016 dated 17.09.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated to Md. Matin.
5. Accordingly, adopting the reasons given in the order dated 23.06.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2015 as well as the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21724 of 2012, the writ petition stands allowed in similar terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U