JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand.

3. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State of Bihar.

4. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 7.

5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“(a) That in the instant writ petition, the Petitioner prays for an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to quash the order dated issuance of 31.08.2010 passed by Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the claim and representation of the Petitioner has been refused and rejected for pensionary benefit for the period of service rendered in the State of Bihar now Jharkhand (Annexure-5).

AND/OR

(b) For the Petitioner further prays for Issuance an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in nature of the mandamus commanding upon the concerned Respondents authorities, particularly to Respondent No. - 3 to take appropriate steps for proper fixation of the pension of the Petitioner, for the period of service rendered in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on and from 02 January 1957 to 20 June 1969 for a period of 12 years, 05 months and 18 days, which has not been paid to the petitioner after his retirement on 31 January, 1995, from Bokaro Steel Plant (Steel Authority of India Limited).

AND/OR

(c) Further direction upon the Respondents No. -3 to make payment of retiral dues/benefits, gratuity and arrear of pension etc.

AND/OR

(d) Further direction to the Respondent to pay statutory interest on the aforesaid dues amount from the date it became dues till same are paid and also the cost of litigation.

AND/OR

(e) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) direction(s) for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Arguments of the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the earlier final judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1654/2011 on 17.01.2014 dismissing the writ petition, on which day, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid judgment was subject-matter in L.P.A. No. 59/2014 and the matter was remanded to the writ court for fresh consideration vide judgment dated 16.07.2014. The learned counsel submits that in the order of remand, it has been specifically recorded that the relieving order was misconstrued by the writ court as resignation, but the same was not factually correct. The learned counsel submits that the order of remand clearly records that the petitioner had relied upon the judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar) and also judgment reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 : AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India).

7. It has been submitted from the side of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 02.01.1957 and was posted at Circle Office, Dhanbad, where he served for more than 12 years in various offices including in Circle Office, Dhanbad, S.D.O. office, Dhanbad and he also undergone training at Ranchi thereafter, posted at S.D.O office, Dhanbad and transferred to Chas Block, where he remained in services till 20.06.1969. Accordingly, he rendered his service in the Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand) for a period of more than 12 years from 02.01.1957 to 20.06.1969. On 21.06.1969 the petitioner joined Bokaro Steel Plant and superannuated from service on 31.01.1995.

8. It is submitted that after joining in Bokaro Steel Plant, the petitioner had applied for being relieved from the service of respondent No. 3 and his application was accepted by letter dated 24.09.1969 and he was relieved from service.

9. The petitioner had submitted his representation before the Deputy Co