Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra S/O Late Bisheshwar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7702, 8825 of 2010, 2796 of 2011, 22339 of 2013
Decided on : 29-03-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh and Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocates, Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra-2, Mr. Varun Kumar-I, Mr. Ashok Kumar Washisht and Mr. Md. Rais, Advocates, Mr. Sitesh Chandra Mitra, Advocate, Shri Prakash Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. (AAG-5), Mr. (SC-23), Mr. S.S. Shabbar Hussain, GP4, Mr. Parth Sharthi, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees absorbed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme were not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, but were entitled to the employers' contribution with interest under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Deputationists - Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 - Employees Provident Fund Act - [Rule 58 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952]
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved whether employees deputed from various Boards/Corporations to the Directorate of Provident Fund, Bihar, and subsequently absorbed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme of the State Government, were entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The employees claimed their absorption entitled them to pension benefits, while the State Government argued that the New Pension Scheme replaced the Bihar Pension Rules for employees appointed after 01.09.2005.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the employees' services were absorbed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme, and therefore, they were not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. However, the Court held that the employees were entitled to the employers' contribution with interest under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, and directed the State Government to make the payments within three months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deputationists, upon their absorption, were entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The employees' services were absorbed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme, and therefore, they were not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. However, the employees were entitled to the employers' contribution with interest under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.
Final Decision: The employees were not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, but were entitled to the employers' contribution with interest under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. The State Government was directed to make the payments within three months.
1. The common dispute, which the present batch of writ applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve is as to whether such employees, who were working in different Boards/Corporations owned by the State Government of Bihar, and were placed, on deputation, under the Directorate of Provident Fund, Bihar, upon their subsequent absorption in the Directorate after coming into force of New Pension Scheme of the State Government (with effect from 01.04.2005) can claim as of right, their entitlement for pensionary benefits under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, on the plea that they had been serving the Directorate of the State of Bihar, though on deputation, till their final absorption in the year 2006.
2. In the present batch of writ applications, the petitioners have questioned, inter alia, the legality and sustainability of an order passed by the Principle Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, dated 12.04.2010 in compliance of an order of this Court, dated 05.01.2010 passed in CWJC No. 15784 of 2009 (Mahendra Kumar Mishra and others v. State of Bihar and others), whereby the State Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners and others on their claim of being covered under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, instead of New Pension Scheme. The claim to this effect of the petitioners was directed to be considered in the light of an earlier order, dated 18.03.2009, passed in CWJC No. 6183 of 2008 (Sheo Kumar Shukla and others v. State of Bihar and ors) and other analogous cases, as the petitioners had claimed that their claim was covered by the said decision of this Court in case of Sheo Kumar Shukla (supra). The Respondents were required under the orders of this Court to consider whether the claim of the persons brought on deputation to establishments under the State Government from various Corporations, for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits could be distinguished from those covered under order, dated 18.03.2009 passed in case of Sheo Kumar Shukla (supra). By the said order, dated 12.04.2010 the case of these petitioners has been distinguished mainly on the ground that the petitioners and similarly situated other persons were covered under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (C.P.F. Scheme) in the light of the terms and conditions of their deputation, which was not the case with the petitioners of Sheo Kumar Shukla (supra), who were covered under General Provident Fund Scheme (G.P.F.) and their claim was based on different footing altogether. There is another reason assigned for rejecting the claim of these petitioners in the order, dated 12.04.2010, to the effect that the petitioners could not make out any enforceable legal claim of their absorption on the ground of their continuous deputation, with effect from an earlier date.
3. Since all these writ applications involve same question of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.
4. The petitioner No.1 of CWJC No. 2796 of 2011 claims to be an association of all deputationists from various Boards and Corporations of the State Government to the Treasuries under Provident Fund Directorate to the State Government of Bihar; formed to look after the welfare and grievance of such deputationists. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 14 of the said case are the members of the said association, who had been deputed under various Boards under the Directorate of Provident Fund, Bihar from various Boards and Corporations.
5. There are 15 petitioners in CWJC No. 7702 of 2010, who, as per the pleadings, were deputed against various vacant posts under the Provident Fund Directorate (Finance Department), Government of Bihar, from various Boards/Corporations of the State of Bihar.
6. In CWJC No. 8825 of 2010, there are 16 petitioners and in CWJC No. 22339 of 2013, one petitioner who have also claim that they were brought on deputation from their parent Boards/Corporations against
