Mrs. Ramjyoti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5147 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

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

                Mrs. Ramjyoti Devi, W/o late Rajeshwari Prasad Singh aged 80 years
                residing at Rani Bagan, Near Birla Gate, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.
                Bariyatu, District Ranchi                  ...    ...     Petitioner
                                          Versus
                1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Government of
                   Jharkhand, Ranchi
                2. State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary Government of Bihar
                   Patna
                3. State Bank of India through its General Manager (Network 2)
                   Local Head Office of S.B.I, west Gandhi Maidan Patna
                4. Regional Manager (Jharkhand 1) of SBI Administrative Office,
                   court compound Ranchi 834001 ...            ...      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 of Jharkhand: Ms. Divya, A.C. to S.C. III For the Resp. State of Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate

---

15/20.12.2022 Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4.

3. Heard Ms. Divya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Jharkhand.

4. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar.

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

"(i) For restoration of status of the petitioner as the pensioner of the territories of state of Jharkhand and continue to be governed by the rules, regulation and benefits admissible with state of Jharkhand.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in the nature of mandamus for adherence of Rule 53 Schedule 8 para 3 of the Bihar Re-organization Act 2000 in dealing with the case of petitioner as petitioner superannuated prior to appointed day of Re-organization of State of Bihar from the Institute situated in the territories of state of Jharkhand.

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in the nature of mandamus or in the nature there of for payment of arrears of pension amounting to Rs.25269/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand and Two Hundred & Sixty Nine) medical allowance @ Rs.300/ per month and payment of Restoration of pension with effect from the date of completion of 15 years of service from 'superannuation' i.e. with effect from August 2012 and not from September 2012 with interest."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.01.1997 from the services in Bihar Tribal Welfare Research Institute Ranchi as Assistant Director and thereafter he was

receiving his pension as per law. In the meantime, State of Jharkhand was created on 15.11.2000 and the State of Jharkhand had issued a letter dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure - 8 filed with the rejoinder) and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the arrears in terms of the said letter issued by the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel has submitted that the issue involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for arrear of revision of pension as per the law applicable in the State of Jharkhand and as per the norms of the Annexure- 8 annexed with the rejoinder, the arrears of revised pension is required to be paid from 01.01.2006. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the main writ petition, the petitioner has relied upon Rule 53 of Schedule 8 para 3 of Bihar Re-organization Act and he submits that the persons, who have retired even before creation of State of Jharkhand from the area falling within the territory of the present State of Jharkhand are to be governed by various decisions of the State of Jharkhand. He has also relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(S). No.2859 of 2004 dated 22.12.2006 to submit that in view of the said judgment, the entire amount as claimed by the petitioner in terms of Annexure- 8 to the rejoinder is payable by State of Jharkhand and accordingly, this writ petition is fit to be allowed. As per the petitioner, the arrear of pension comes to Rs.25,269/-.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has submitted that the State of Bihar through the Finance Department has filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 04.08.2014 in the present case and as per the counter-affidavit, the petitioner, who retired from service from undivided State of Bihar is the pensioner of State of Bihar and as per the State of Bihar, 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation has been implemented w.e.f. 01.04.2006 in principle and actual benefit has been given only from 01.04.2007, hence the claim of arrear of pension for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2007 i.e., Rs.25,269/- is not payable and also medical allowance in State of Bihar is Rs.100/- per month whereas in State of Jharkhand is Rs.300/- per month up to January, 2012 which was wrong hence from February, 2012, it has been reduced to Rs.100/- in place of Rs.300/- per month. The specific case of State of Bihar is that the pension has been rightly provided to the petitioner. The learned counsel has also referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Surendra Prasad Thakur Vs. State of Jharkhand

passed in W.P.(S) No.394 of 2014 reported in 2014 (3) AJR 749 para 13 and 14 to submit that the relevant provision of Bihar Re-organization Act has been taken into consideration and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar decided on 15.12.2005 has also been taken into consideration wherein, it has been clearly held that the liability for pension or any revised pension for those who had retired prior to creation of State of Jharkhand will be that of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to whatever is payable to the pensioner of State of Bihar and is not entitled to any relief which is otherwise payable for the pensioners of the State of Jharkhand.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State Bank of India has submitted that the pension payment order of the petitioner, duly sanctioned by the Accountant General, State of Bihar at Patna, has been annexed along with the counter-affidavit. He has also submitted that a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State Bank of India giving the foundational details with regard to the claim and entitlement of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that for some time the petitioner was wrongly treated as a pensioner of State of Jharkhand which was subsequently rectified.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioner is not the pensioner of State of Jharkhand and she supports the arguments advanced on behalf of the State of Bihar and State Bank of India.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner had retired from State of Bihar as back as on 31.01.1997 much prior to creation of State of Jharkhand. The petitioner has retired from the territory which falls within the State of Jharkhand. This Court finds that the pension and post retiral benefits was duly sanctioned by the Accountant General, Bihar and the petitioner was being paid the same regarding which the petitioner had no grievance.

11. It appears that the petitioner became aggrieved by non-release of revised pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the specific case of the petitioner is based on Annexure - 8 filed along with the rejoinder, which is a letter issued by the authorities of State of Jharkhand wherein, the arrears of revised pension was to be paid to the various pensioners of

the State of Jharkhand. This Court finds that the petitioner has not brought on record any corresponding similar decision of the State of Bihar rather, the State of Bihar through its Finance Department has filed a specific counter-affidavit in the present case stating that the petitioner is a pensioner of the State of Bihar and the revised pension though notionally given effect from 01.01.2006, the financial benefit has been given from 01.04.2007 as per the policy decision of the State of Bihar and the petitioner is also entitled to the medical benefit applicable as per the policy and the decision of State of Bihar.

12. This Court also finds that in the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court, in the case of Mithlesh Kumar Singh (supra) wherein, the petitioner was a constable, who had superannuated from the district of Hazaribagh as back as on 13.08.1989, it has been ultimately held in para 9 that the court was satisfied from the plain reading of the statutory provision that the liability with regard to the father of the said writ petitioner, having retired from the State of Bihar before the appointed day, would rest with the State of Bihar. This judgment has also been considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Thakur (supra). The paragraphs 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:

13. In "Damodar Kumar Ojha v. State of Jharkhand and others", reported in 2006 (2) JLJR 516 (2004 AIR Jhar HCR 1752) the retiral benefits of the pensioner who was working as forester in the State Trading Division Chatra South, Chatra, erstwhile Bihar State, was directed to be paid. The Court further observed, "but still the question is who shall pay the amount to concerned treasury in cases not covered by Clause 2 of the VIIIth Schedule, ordinarily it is the State of Bihar.

14. In most of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the statutory provisions under the Bihar Re- organization Act, 2000 have not been noticed by the Court. In "Bharati Prasad Thakur v. Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka" (2003 AIR Jhar HCR 740) (supra) the learned single Judge of this Court specifically declared in para 10 that the issue is left open. And, In "Akhileshwar Prasad v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board" (supra) a Division Bench of this Court having considered the guidelines contained in letter dated 6.1.2004 and the agreement dated 27.12.2003 between the J.S.E.B. and B.S.E.B made an order for payment of pensionary dues to the employees, retired/retiring from the areas, now falling under their jurisdiction, subject to final accounting/adjustment of their liabilities and also subject to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suit No. 01 of 2005. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has relied on a decision of Patna High Court in "Mithilesh Kumar Singh alias Molan Singh v. The State of Bihar and others", reported in 2006 (1) PLJR 420, whereunder also the Court has held that, in view of the statutory provision under the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, the liability to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be of the State of Bihar."

13. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of "Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others", (supra) read with the aforesaid judgement of Surendra Prasad Thakur (supra), the liability to pay the pensionary and other retiral benefits to an employee retiring prior to 15.11.2000 would be of the State of Bihar. Even in view of the counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, the petitioner is a pensioner of the State of Bihar and is guided by the various circulars or guidelines of the State of Bihar. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on Annexure - 8 to the rejoinder, to claim any arrears of pension on the basis of decision taken by the State of Jharkhand, is misplaced and misconceived and no relief, as prayed for by the writ petitioner, can be granted by referring to Annexure - 8 issued by the State of Jharkhand.

14. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2859 of 2004 is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The said judgment related to the claim of promotion to the post of Reader and the petitioner was also claiming arrears on the basis of U.G.C pay scale for the period prior to and after creation of Jharkhand. The said judgement does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner had admittedly retired from government service much before creation of State of Jharkhand and was also getting pension from the undivided State of Bihar. This Court is of the considered view that for all purposes, the petitioner has to be guided by the decision/Circular issued by the State of Bihar, even if the payment is being released to the petitioner through the treasury in the State of Jharkhand.

15. This Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/