Patna High Court - Orders
Pratap Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2021
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8581 of 2017
======================================================
Bala Kant Prasad Singh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12169 of 2019
======================================================
Pratap Narayan Singh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8581 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Manglam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subhash Pd. Singh-GA3
Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, A.C.to G.A.3
For the P.M.C. : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12169 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shekhar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ranjay Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-6
For the P.M.C. Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
14 11-02-2021With reference to the order dated 09.11.2020 passed in CWJC No. 12169 of 2019, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4. It is pointed out that as per the direction of this Court the officials of the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') examined the facts regarding the benefits which Patna High Court CWJC No.8581 of 2017(14) dt.11-02-2021 2/6 have been provided to the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation and the employees of the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority (since dissolved). A copy of the report has been enclosed as Annexure 'RA'. Perusal thereof would show that on the date of the merger of the 'PRDA' the employees of the Corporation were getting pension but this benefit was not allowed to the employees of the erstwhile 'PRDA' who were absorbed in the Corporation as a consequence of the merger of the 'PRDA' with the 'Corporation'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 14307 of 2016 and its analogous matter wherein the stand of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar has been taken note of. The relevant part of the said judgment of the learned coordinate Bench are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-
"The only dispute which arises for consideration is, whether these petitioners after their absorption in the Corporation, were entitled to the benefits under 'the Pension Rule' as applicable to the Corporation employees and for which a query was made by the Municipal Commissioner by letter dated 21.1.2017 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, a copy of which is placed on record vide Annexure R3/B Patna High Court CWJC No.8581 of 2017(14) dt.11-02-2021 3/6 filed on behalf of the Corporation in each of the two writ petitions, as to how the pension cases of these employees of erstwhile PRDA who have been absorbed in Patna Municipal Corporation, is to be dealt with. It is in response to the query so made by the Municipal Commissioner through his letter dated 21.1.2017, placed at Annexure R3/B, that the Urban Development and Housing Department through the Director, Municipality cum Joint Secretary has issued an advisory to the Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation that the cases of such of the employees who stood absorbed with the Corporation would be governed in the same manner as the permanent employees of the Corporation. A copy of such advisory dated 24.4.2017 of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar has been placed on record vide Annexure 10 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the query whatsoever engaging the Municipal Commissioner, Patna stands satisfied in the advisory present in the letter dated 24.4.2017 vide Annexure 10, it is now for the Municipal Corporation to enforce the same and let the Municipal Commissioner, Patna take a final decision to such effect within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
The writ petitions are allowed with the directions aforementioned."
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in fact the State Government was categorical before the learned coordinate Bench in saying that the cases of all such employees who stood absorbed to the Corporation would be governed in the same manner as permanent employees of the Corporation. If Patna High Court CWJC No.8581 of 2017(14) dt.11-02-2021 4/6 this was the stand of the State Government and pursuant thereto the learned coordinate Bench has issued direction to the Municipal Commissioner, Patna to take a final decision to such effect, the Municipal Commissioner would not be justified in issuing a notification restricting the benefit of pension to only those employees who are presently in service while keeping the matter relating to payment of pension and family pension in relation to the retired employees pending for last two years.
In this connection the report as contained in Annexure 'RA' vide Memo No. 01115 dated 19.01.2021 has been referred to and this Court has been called upon to take a view with regard to the payment of pension and family pension relating to the retired employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, the proposal has been kept pending since 16.01.2019 but at the same time in paragraph '7' of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation a plea has been taken that according to Rule '4' of the Patna Municipal Corporation Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1986') the employee who has withdrawn both the contribution amount of provident fund shall not be eligible for pension. Learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.8581 of 2017(14) dt.11-02-2021 5/6 submits that the statement has been made in the supplementary counter affidavit being completely ignorant of the basic fact that such rule would be applicable only when the employees of the erstwhile 'PRDA' (since dissolved) would have an opportunity to choose between the contributory provident fund and pension. If such option was not available to the employees of the erstwhile 'PRDA', the analogy which is the premise of Rule '4' of the Rules of 1986 would not be available to be applied against the retired employees of the 'PRDA'.
Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation submits that since the report filed before this Court shows that the matter is still pending consideration, he may be allowed an opportunity to come back to this Court with further instruction as to the decision in regard to the retired employees.
This Court is granting further four weeks time being fully conscious of the fact that the matters have been adjourned on many occasions but with sole intention that the authorities of the Municipal Corporation must act and take an appropriate decision as keeping the matter pending at their end is not a way out to resolve the disputes.
This Court expects that the competent Patna High Court CWJC No.8581 of 2017(14) dt.11-02-2021 6/6 authority/Board, as the case may be, shall take an appropriate decision on the pending proposal within a period of four weeks from today. If such decision is not taken by the competent authority/Board within the stipulated period, this Court would proceed to take a view that the Corporation is not willing to decide the issue at their end. The time is being granted keeping in mind that the competent authority/Board has sent the proposal long back on 16.01.2019, since then more than two years have gone.
Let both these matters be listed after four weeks i.e. on 18th of March, 2021.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/-
U Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.