1. The issue raised in the writ petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner while posted in the State Government w.e.f. 12.8.1970 to 4.6.1976 would count as qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension and pensionary entitlements since after his appointment in the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), in view of the stipulation present in the memorandum of the Central Govt. dated 29.8.1984 (Annexure-10) adopted and followed by the Board in the Circular dated 14.2.1992 (Annexure-14).

2. With the consent of the parties the matter has been taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma for the respondent Electricity Board and its authorities and Mr. Girijesh Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 for the State.

4. Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, learned counsel representing the respondent Electricity Board and its authorities at the very outset raised a preliminary objection as regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds that the matter stood concluded under an order dated 20.4.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11072 of 1980 (R.K. Shukia V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.), whereby a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition finding no merit in the same. He thus submits that the issue having been raised before this Court and deliberated upon by a Division Bench, stands answered under the order passed in the said writ petition and the writ petition thus should be dismissed in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench(supra).

5. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the preliminary issue raised by Mr. Verma submitted that only if an issue is taken up by a Court and adjudicated upon, that it becomes a binding precedent on the issue. He further submits that it is the ratio decidendi in any case which becomes a binding precedent for subsequent considerations on the issue. He submits that the consideration of an issue exists only if the same is put on test in the light of rival contentions raised by the respective parties upon a contest. He submits that simply holding a writ petition being devoid of merit, would not suffice the legal principles of a binding precedent.

6. Mr. Ojha in support of his contentions relied upon the following decisions:

(i) A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 38 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Gurnam Kaur) (paragraph-10 to 12) for the proposition that mere casual expression would not carry weight;

(ii) 2004 A.I.R. S.C.W. 944 (Union of India V/s. Amrit Lal Manchanda & Anr.), paragraphs 17 and 18;

(iii) A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1457 (Daryao & Ors. V/s. State of U.P. & Ors.) paragraph 19;

(iv) A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1780 [: 1986 PLJR (SC)48] (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.).

(v) A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 647 (State of Orissa V/s. Sudhanshu Shekhar Mishra & Ors.), paragraph-13.

7. Mr. Ojha submitted that even on facts, the case of R.K. Shukia and that of the present petitioner was distinguishable. He submits that R.K. Shukia was an employee of the Union of India in its Ministry of Railways and belonged to the North Eastern Railway Cadre. It was submitted that the employees of the Union of India are governed by a separate set of classification rules as well as pension rules and that the Bihar Pension Rules are not applicable on them. It was submitted that R.K. Shukia joined the Railways in 1954 and continued in the services of the Railways before choosing to resign from the same on 1.8.1964 for joining the Electricity Board and where he continued until 30.6.1988 being the date of his superannuation. He thus submits that even assuming that the Bihar Pension Rules were applicable in such cases, the said R.K.Shukia having resigned from the Railways to join the Electricity Board faced forfeiture of his past services in terms of Rule 10