Back
2005 Supreme(Pat) 1066
PATNA HIGH COURT
Navin Sinha, J.
Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Molan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 13456 of 2004 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 2005
Liability for G.P. Fund dues and revised pension under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2002 and Rule 186(ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
Headnote:
G.P. Fund - Claim for G.P. Fund dues, revised pension, and family pension - Sec. 53 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2002 - Schedule VIII - Rule 186(ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elder son of the deceased constable, filed a claim for G.P. Fund dues, revised pension, and family pension for his younger brother. The court disposed of the case with directions to file a representation before the State of Bihar for the revised pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability for G.P. Fund dues rested with the State of Jharkhand, while the liability for revised pension from 1.1.1996 to 5.9.1998 rested with the State of Bihar. The claim for family pension for the younger brother was dismissed as he was beyond 18 years of age.
Issues: Claim for G.P. Fund dues, revised pension, and family pension under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2002 and Bihar Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on sec. 53 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2002 and Rule 186(ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules to determine the liabilities for G.P. Fund dues and revised pension. The court also considered the age of the petitioner's younger brother to dismiss the claim for family pension.
Final Decision: The application was allowed only for filing a representation before the State of Bihar for the revised pension, with directions for the state to consider the representation and pay legitimate dues within 12 weeks.
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.
2. The petitioner is the elder son of the deceased late Rai Narayan Singh who superannuated from the post of constable on 13.8.1989 from the District of Hazaribagh. He was subsequently deceased on 5.9.1998. The mother of the petitioner also stated to Rave pre-deceased his father on 7.8.1997.
3. The controversy in the present case would relate to a claim for G.P. Fund dues of the late father of the petitioner. The additional claim would be for revised pension with effect from 1.1.1996 under the 5th Pay Revision Committee Report. The last claim would be for family pension to the younger brother of the petitioner on the plea that he would be under 25 years of age.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. A specific statement has been made in paragraph 10 of the same that the G.P. Fund dues of the late father of the petitioner would have been paid to him before his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses his ignorance for the same/There would be no rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner to the aforesaid statement made in the counter-affidavit.
5. In view of the statement made in the aforesaid paragraph of the counter-affidavit this Court is not persuaded to proceed on this aspect of the matter any further. However, should the petitioner request in writing for details of such payments made to his deceased father, it shall be the responsibility of the respondents, State of Jharkhand, to make available the necessary information to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date that he would make such request. If the same be not made available to the petitioner it would be open for the petitioner to bring the matter to the attention of this Court by filing an appropriate, application when the same shall be listed under the heading "For Orders".
6. In the event that there be any legitimate arrears on account of G.P. Fund payable to the deceased father of the petitioner, the State of Jharkhand shall ensure that necessary authority slip for the same be issued to him within the period of eight weeks from the date of request made by the petitioner as above.
7. The next issue would be the claim for revised pension under the 5th Pay Revision Committee Report with effect from 1.1.1996 till 4.9.1998, when the father of the petitioner was deceased.
8. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has rightly drawn the attention of this Court of sec. 53 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2002 read with Schedule VIII, 1 arid 2.
53. Pension.-The liability of the existing State of Bihar in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits shall pass to, or be apportioned between the successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand in accordance with the provisions contained in the Eight Schedule of this Act. The Eight Schedule.-Apportionment of Liability in Respect of Pensions and other Retirement Benefits : 1. Subject to the adjustments mentioned in paragraph 3, each of the successor State shall in respect of pension and other retirement benefits sanctioned before the appointed date, pay from their respective treasures.
2. Subject to the said adjustment, the liability in respect of pensions and other retirement benefits of officers serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Bihar who retire or proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement before the appointed day, but whose claims for pensions and other retirement benefits are outstanding immediately before the day, shall be the liability of the State of Bihar.
9. The liability for pension or any revised pension to the father of the petitioner from 1.1.1996 to 5.9.1998 would be that of the State of Bihar. This Court is satisfied from a plain reading of the statutory provision that the father of the petitioner having retired from the State of Bihar before the
