Mrs. Ramjyoti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5083 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  W.P.(S) No. 973 of 2013

                Mrs. Ramjyoti Devi                              ...     ...      Petitioner
                                         Versus
                State of Jharkhand and Ors.              ...        ...       Respondents
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate For the Resp.- SBI : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC III : Ms. Divya, A.C. to S.C. III For the Resp. State of Bihar: Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate

---

14/15.12.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking adjournment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the original petitioner had retired as back as in the year 1997 and is getting pension from State of Bihar though the amount is being given to the petitioner by the treasury situated within the State of Jharkhand. It is not in dispute that petitioner had retired from the territory now falling within the State of Jharkhand.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is claiming certain benefit which has been given by the State of Jharkhand, but no such benefit has been conferred as claimed by the petitioner by the State of Bihar. They submit that the petitioner will be guided by the policies and decisions of the State of Bihar and not by the State of Jharkhand as the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar and he started getting pension as back as in the year 1997 itself from the State of Bihar.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue has fallen for consideration and various judgments have been passed in favour of the petitioner which he seeks to rely upon on the next date of hearing.

6. To this, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 (3) AJR 749 in the case of Surendra Prasad Thakur Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S). No.394 of 2014 and submits that this Court had referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High

Court reported in 2006 (1) PLJR 420 (Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar) wherein, it has been held after referring to the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 that the liability to pay pension and other retiral benefit to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be as that of State of Bihar. The learned counsel has also placed the aforesaid judgment passed by Patna High Court in the case of Mithlesh Kr. Singh Vs. State of Bihar, which is C.W.J.C. No.13456 of 2004. He submits that the petitioner of the said case had superannuated from the post of Constable on 13.08.1989 from the district of Hazaribagh and it has been ultimately held that the liability for pension or any revised pension would be that of the State of Bihar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall examine these judgments.

8. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, post this case for further hearing on 20.12.2022 to be taken up as a first case at 10.30 a.m.

9. Let this matter be treated as part heard.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav