JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6140 of 2015 and other analogous writ petitions whereby the claim of the appellant and other identically situated employees of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BIADA’) for grant of pension have been turned down.

2. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present appeal is that the appellant was appointed on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk on 27.08.1976 by the three Men Committee headed by the Managing Director of the BIADA in North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Limited, who was subsequently transferred to Darbhanga Industrial Area Development Authority and promoted on the post of Assistant and after serving for over a period of 37 years, superannuated on 31.01.2014.

3. It is the case of the appellant that different Industrial Area Development Authorities were created by the State Government on the basis of the Ordinance way back in the year 1972 and 1973 and subsequently, the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act was enacted and under the Act different authorities started functioning. Further, after bifurcation of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, out of six authorities, three authorities i.e. Patna, Darbhanga and North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority remained with the State of Bihar and they have been amalgamated as Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority.

4. While assailing the order under appeal, it is submitted that the grievance of the appellant hinges around the fact that right from inception of the establishment of the Authority, the services of the appellant and other employees of the Authority were governed by the Bihar Service Code, Bihar Finance Rules, Bihar State Employees Conduct rules and the letters issued by the State Government from time to time. The appellant and other employees have been allowed the benefit of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th revised pay scale after getting the consent of the State Government and promotions have also been accorded as per their eligibility. The next line of the submission of the appellant is that all the employees and the appellant have served the authority for all along as a public servant, as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Industry Department, Bihar, Patna, which is the controlling department, unilaterally, vide letter no. 7459/Patna dated 23.06.1980 imposed Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on all the employees of the Authority against their interest and in dissonance to the provisions of the Act. Nonetheless, the employees of the State Government, who were transferred to and absorbed in BIADA were allowed the benefit of pension. Thus, clear discrimination has been caused to the appellant and other similarly situated employees of the Authority without any justifiable reason, in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Certain instances have been placed before this Court who have been allowed the benefit of pension irrespective of the fact that their services were governed by the same rules and regulations.

5. It would be relevant to state here that the appellant and other identical situated persons approached the Secretary of the BIADA for grant of pension, which was negated vide letter no. 5791 dated 26.09.2014 in the light of the order of the Industry Department, Government of Bihar as contained in Memo No. 4345 dated 02.09.2011.The appellant and others, being aggrieved by the aforenoted orders moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6140 of 2015 and other analogous writ petitions, the order of which is impugned herein.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the BIADA has submitted that from the record, it is manifestly evident that way back in the year 1980 itself, Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was implemented in BIADA, similar to the other Boards and Corporations and at no