The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to pro-rata pension, refund of G.P.F. deductions with interest, and the inapplicability of the 6th Pay Revision recommendation to the petitioner. The judgment also emphasizes the limitations on making recoveries from pensionary benefits after an employee's superannuation.

Counter affidavit, rejoinder and supplementary affidavit are on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and learned counsels for the State and the Accountant General.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court primarily with regard to five grievances all related to retiral and post retiral claims. The first grievance of the petitioner is that for the period he rendered service under the State Government, he is entitled to pro-rata pension in a manner similar to a co-employee as per the decision of this Court in the case of Hem Chandra Jha versus the State of Bihar & Ors., being C.W.J.C. No.5570 of 1999 disposed of on 12.04.2001 (part of Annexure-16 series). His second grievance is that for the period he was under Government employment deductions of G.P.F. were made, he is entitled to refund thereof with statutory interest up to date. His third grievance is that he has not been extended the benefit of 6thPay Revision recommendations which were effective from 01.01.1996 and connected therewith is the fourth that his gratuity needs to be revised accordingly. His last and fifth grievance is that certain recoveries have been made from his pensionary benefits much after his superannuation without any proceeding on the ground that his pay fixation upon first and second time bound promotion was wrongly made. Those recoveries are unsustainable at this point of time.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner whose date of birth is 17.11.1944 was selected and appointed as Typist Clerk in the office of Technical Manager of Large Industrial Estate, Muzaffarpur on 21.11.1964. In 1974, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was enacted by the State Legislature. All the Industrial Estates large or small were transferred to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, which was an autonomous body under the Act. State was divided into different zones. For different zones there were different Industrial Area Development Authority. The petitioner thus became an employee of the North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, being part and parcel of Large Industrial Estate, Muzaffarpur, who stood transferred lock, stock and barrel to the Industrial Area Development Authority. It may be mentioned here that though the petitioner was appointed at Large Industrial Estate, Muzaffarpur in 1971, he was transferred to Rural Industrial Estate, Ramnagar, West Champaran, which, ultimately, vested lock, stock and barrel in the North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority in the year 1978. Petitioner worked there and, ultimately, superannuated on 30.11.2002. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court has to examine the grievances of the petitioner.

4. Mr. Piyush Lall, learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “BIADA”) submits that there are two different status of service of the petitioner. First as a Government employee from 1964 to 1978 for a period of 14 years. From 1978 up to his superannuation in the year 2002, he was not a Government employee, but an employee of an autonomous statutory body, i.e., the North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority. The service conditions are not common. It is not a case of deputation. In 1978, the petitioner was in the Rural Industrial Estate, Ramnagar, West Champaran. This estate stood transferred to the North Bihar Industrial Development Authority under the Act lock, stock and barrel. All assets and liabilities stood transferred including that of the petitioner who then became absorbed as a part and parcel of the Industrial Area Development Authority. In my view, the stand is correct and we have to examine the five grievances of the petitioner keeping in view this distinction in mind.

5. The first grievance of the petitioner is with regard to pension. Petitioner submits that being