Judgment :

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against the judgment dated 4th March, 2009 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 863 and 914 of 2007.

3. The facts very briefly are that Ramashish Prasad and Vishwanath Ram were working with the Ara Municipal Corporation. Ramashish Prasad superannuated on 31st August, 1996 and Vishwanath Ram superannuated on 31st March, 1999. While they were working in the Ara Municipal Corporation, the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules') came into effect. The Rules were to apply to all permanent employees of the Municipalities and Notified Area Committees in the State of Bihar. The Ara Municipal Corporation, however, did not give effect to the Rules until 19th June, 2004 on which date it adopted resolution to give pensionary benefits to its employees who had retired from service from the year 2000 onwards in accordance with the Rules.

4. Aggrieved, Ramashish Prasad and Vishwanath Ram filed Writ Petitions CWJC Nos. 3267 and 3441 of 2005 before the Patna High Court claiming appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petitions held in his judgment dated 25th May, 2007 that the Rules were applicable with effect from 13-11-1987 when the Rules were notified in the Gazette and since both the writ petitioners had superannuated after 13-11-1987 they were entitled to the benefit of pension under the Rules. The judgment dated 25th May, 2007 of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the Ara Municipal Corporation in L.P.A. Nos. 863 and 914 of 2007 and by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Rules came into effect on 13-11-1987 but held that as the two writ petitioners had not exercised their option for the pension as required by Rule 4 of the Rules and as their right to pension under the Rules was dependent upon the exercise of their option for pension, they were not entitled for the pension under the Rules. Aggrieved, Ramashish Prasad and the legal heirs of Vishwanath Ram have filed these appeals before this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the only point that we have to decide in these appeals is whether Ramashish Prasad and Vishwanath Ram were entitled to the benefit of the Rules even though they had not exercised their option for pension as required by Rule 4 of the Rules. For deciding this point, we have to look at the Rules 1 and 4 of the Rules which are quoted here-in- below:

1. These rules may be called the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 and shall apply to all permanent employees of the Municipalities and Notified Area Committees.

4. (i) Municipal employee on roll on the date of confirmation of this rule and who had subscribed to the contributory provident fund under provident fund rules and want to be governed by these rules shall have the option to do so and such option shall be exercised in writing in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) and submitted to their head of office within 90 days from the date of framing of this rule by the State Government. If such option in writing in prescribed form is not received within the period so fixed, it will be deemed that they would retain the existing contributory provident fund.

(ii) Municipal employees who retired before the date of effect of this rule and have received the part or whole amount of provident fund contribution will not be eligible for the pension.

6. A bare reading of the Rules 1 and 4(i) of the Rules makes it clear that the Rules apply to permanent employees of the Municipalities and Notified Area Committees in the State of Bihar. Thus, all permanent employees of Municipalities and Notified Area Committees including the Ara Municipal Corporation were statutorily entitled to the pension under the Rules. Rule 4(ii) of the Rules provided further that municipal employees who retired before t