Pension and retirement benefits are rights, not discretionary, and must be paid with interest for delays, recognizing the entire service of permanent government employees.

JUDGMENT :

(Purnendu Singh, J.)

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the State; Mr. Utkarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar and Mr. Rajan Prakash, learned counsel for the Corporation.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

(I) For issuance of writ of in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold and declare, the husband of the petitioner as a permanent government servant from 14.06.62 to 19.09.1982 and to count his entire service for all the pensionary and other benefits which are due to him in accordance with law but not paid.

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, command/commands, commanding upon the respondents to pay the petitioner pension and retiral benefits by taking into consideration the services rendered by her late husband in the State Government.

(iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s deceased husband was initially appointed on adhoc basis on 14.04.1962 in the Industries Department, Government of Bihar and to confirm the same, the petitioner has brought on record the communication dated 13.08.1975, giving the fact that services of the petitioner was transferred from Industries Department to the government created Bihar State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation Limited with effect from 22.09.1975 to be adjusted on different post. Husband of the petitioner after joining the Corporation had died on 19.09.1982 working as Sales Manager in harness. The petitioner is aggrieved for non-payment of family pension, retiral dues and other terminal benefits, as a result of death of her husband. The petitioner has claimed that Ramanand Prasad and Ram Sagar Yadav, whose services were also transferred by the State Government were denied the pensionary benefits and pension, had filed writ petition before this Court and the same got dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred LPA which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. One similarly situated employee Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh also filed a writ petition and thereafter he also preferred LPA against the said order and the Division Bench passed the order in favour of the said Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh. The State preferred SLP against the order of the Division Bench passed in favour of Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh bearing Civil Appeal No.1684 of 2004 and Ramanand Prasad and Ram Sagar Yadav filed SLP against order of the Division Bench bearing Civil Appeal Nos.2594 of 2005 and 2595 of 2005 respectively. The Apex Court after considering the fact that the initial appointment was of the year 1962 in respect of the appellants/ Ramanand Prasad and Ram Sagar Yadav before it and in view of the fact that they were permanent government servants from 14.06.1962 and they were sent to Corporation, held that their entire service would be counted for all pensionary and other benefit, which are due to them in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner on the facts, as well as, on law is the same and family pension and other death-cum-retrial benefits, to which, she is entitled for, is required to be paid to her by the respondents.

5. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and he submitted that the fact is that services of the employees of the Industries Department including the petitioner and the two similarly situated employees, in whose case, the Apex Court had directed for payment of pensionary benefits, however, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that husband of the petitioner had died in harness in the year