The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to the G.P.F. Scheme and the pensionable service under the Circular dated 31.3.2004, as well as the duty of the State and its officials to present relevant documents and the applicability of the court's decision to all similarly situated individuals.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

I.A. No. 2425 of 2013 has been preferred for condoning the delay of 110 days in the filing of the Appeal. After hearing the parties, considering the explanation for the delay, the important question involved for adjudication, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the Appeal on merits.

2. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent no.1. The present Appeal arises from order dated 4.9.2012 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 2246 of 2012. Respondent no.1 has been held entitled to family pension for the services rendered by her deceased husband relying on C.W.J.C. No.6183 of 2008 and analogous cases, affirmed in L.P.A. No.788 of 2009. The S.L.P. (Civil) No.8663 of 2010 assailing the latter was dismissed in limine. The husband of Respondent no.1 was initially appointed on 1.5.1980 as Khalasi on muster roll in the Public Health Engineering Department. He, along with others was inducted in the work charge establishment on 25.1.1988. Recommendation was made on 21. 12. 1998 for absorption in the regular establishment having completed 10 years in the work charge establishment referring to letter number 5074 dated 20. 9. 1990 of the Finance Department. On the contrary, he and several others were reverted to muster roll on a 1.6.2002. Such reversions were challenged in a large number of writ applications. A Division Bench in C.W.J.C No. 7359 of 2002 and analogous cases referred it to a three men committee to be constituted by the government. The husband of Respondent no.1 and several others similarly situated were ultimately absorbed in the regular establishment on 1.12. 2006 in the scale of Rs.2550 - 55 2660 - 60 - 3200 /- and worked in that capacity till his demise on 20.1.2009. Respondent no.1 in the circumstances staked the claim for family pension and other post retiral dues.

3. On 31.8.2005, the respondents introduced the Contributory Pension Fund Scheme (CPF) in lieu of Bihar Group Provident Fund Rules, 1948 (GPF) and made it applicable to those appointed after 1.9.2005. The employees regularized on 1.12.2006 were considered as fresh appointees after 1.9.2005 and the CPF scheme made applicable to them by order dated 1.2.2008. C.W.J.C. No. of 2246 of 2012 and analogous cases were filed challenging the decision asserting that they were already holding GPF accounts and deductions were being made since earlier and were continued even after absorption till issuance of the aforesaid order. The Court held that after induction into the work charge establishment, service book had been opened along with GPF account. Deductions from salary for deposit in the individual GPF account had commenced. The GPF contribution continued after the absorption recommended by the three men committee also till January 2008. On 1.2.2008 orders followed to treat them as fresh appointees after 1.9.2005 covered by the CPF scheme relying on Circular dated 31.8.2005. The Circular at clause 3 excluded its applicability to those on deputation or contract from public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies, daily wagers and re-appointed employees. The order for absorption also mentioned that such employees would continue to work at the place they were earlier discharging duties. Noticing all of the aforesaid it was held as follows:-

“When the committee constituted by the respondents considered the case of the petitioners, all that was done was to put back the petitioners in a situation where they stood earlier. The recital in the order dated 6.12.2006 that they were absorbed on newly created posts can at best amount to their reinstatement/re- induction under clause- 3 of Circular dated 31.8.2005. The respondents were themselves under no misconception with regard to the applicability of clause 3 thereof to the petitioners. This is more than evident from the fact that again from December 2006 to January 2008 there G.P.F accounts continued and deductions continued to be made from their salary…...”

This court finds it dif