JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (herein after referred as AIADA) and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned G.A.-II for the respondent State.

2. This is a very important matter, the employee who has been employed by the State Government has been transferred to Public Undertaking suo-motu and has been denied pension and dragged to this Court.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for sanction of retirement pension for the period 16.08.1962 to 28.02.1974. The petitioner was denied to serve the State of Government with due diligence one fine morning he was served with a government transfer order that he was transferred to the newly constituted authority AIADA w.e.f. 01.03.1974.

4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no consent was taken from the petitioner before the transfer of services of the petitioner to AIADA. He further submits that the said Authority is a Public Sector undertaking fully owned by the State Government. As the petitioner was not confirmed during that time and having mis-apprehension about his future prospect, after the said transfer he filed representation before the State Government for confirmation in the service. His representation was forwarded to AIADA by letter dated 06.03.1975. Thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed in AIADA and after completion of 58 years of age the petitioner was superannuated w.e.f. 31.03.2000, the petitioner was served with necessary relieving orders by AIADA which is letter dated 30.03.2000. After the retirement, the petitioner applied for pension which was forwarded by the AIADA to the Government of Jharkhand which was rejected by the State Government vide Annexure-6 to this writ petition which is memo dated 05.06.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 15 years of service in the State Government Service which is required for getting pension. Aggrieved with this rejection order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Mr. Singh, appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was transferred by the State Government to AIADA in the year 1974, which was the decision of the State Government for which no option has been taken from the petitioner if there would have any option the matter would have been different. He further submits that in view of the Rules 58 and 59 of the Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled for pension. He further submits that the rejection order is not tenable even if stand taken by the State Government is accepted. He draws the attention of this Court to clause 20 of the letter dated 31.07.1980 which is annexure-7 to the writ petition and submits that in view of the Clause 20 wherein it is said that the same will apply for the pension matters which are still pending since before. He further submits that the matter is covered by the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in the case of Hemchandra Jha Vs. State of Bihar in case no. C.W.J.C. No. 5570 of 1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 12th April, 2001, also by the case of Mridul Kumar Sinha V. State of Bihar reported in 2010 (A) PLJR 124 and by the case of Vijay Kumar Thakur V. State of Bihar reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 862. Further, he submits that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the petitioner is entitled for pension from the State Government. In the case of Mridul Kumar Sinha V. State of Bihar paragraph nos. 4 and 5 held as under:-

5. The Court has certain reservation and difficulty in extending the reasoning which may have weighed in matter of grant of pension to Kamal Bansh Narayan Singh, specially in the background that the petitioner is challenging the reasoning, which has been given by the Additional Director in impugned Annexure-1. Attention of the Court, however, has been drawn to a decision which ha