Jharkhand High Court

Basudeo Prasad Triyar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2023

                                       1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W. P. (S) No. 1654 of 2011

         Basudeo Prasad Triyar, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad, R/o Village
         Lakhahari, P.O. & P.S.- Pachamba, District - Giridih, Jharkhand
                                                  ...     ...        Petitioner
                                Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Project Building, P.O. &
         P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
      3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District-
         Dhanbad, Jharkhand
      4. The District Development Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and
         District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand
      5. The Accountant General of Jharkhand having its office at P.O. &
         P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
      6. The State of Bihar
      7. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (SAIL), Through Chairman-Managing Director
                                             ...      ...         Respondents
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate For Resp.-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Resp.- State of Bihar : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 5 and 7 : None

---

29/03.02.2023

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 issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to quash the order dated 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 judgement passed by this court in W.P.

(S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus The State of Bihar) and also judgement reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara versus 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 Commissioner, Dhanbad, for pensionary benefit for the period of service rendered in the State of Bihar now Jharkhand but the said authority rejected the representation of the petitioner by impugned order dated 31.08.2010 stating that the provisions made for the Pension Rules and the modification by the State Government does not entitle the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that he has gone through the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7162/2012 decided on 23.09.2022 and he submits that the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner never resigned from the service rather the petitioner after joining the Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) applied for relieving him from the service of the respondent No. 3 and was accordingly relieved. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph-9 of the writ petition.

11. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order, on the one hand, records that the petitioner had given his resignation and, on

the other hand, there has been repeated communication to get hold of the service book of the petitioner. The learned counsel, accordingly, submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 and in the said case also, the petitioner had applied before his controlling authority for relieving him from the post and thereafter, he was relieved from his post.

12. The learned counsel has also referred to the supplementary- affidavit filed in this case on 21.06.2011 and has referred to the circular of the State Government to submit that the minimum pensionable service is 10 years and admittedly, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service and therefore, he is entitled for pension.

13. It has also been submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on 25.08.2014 annexing a document as annexure-A to show that the petitioner was given 'no objection certificate' from the district development officer , Dhanbad for getting better job in Bokaro Steel Plant which supports the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied before his controlling authority for relieving him from the post and thereafter, he was relieved from his post to join Bokaro Steel Plant . The petitioner has also relied upon a circular of the State of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 regarding payment of pensionary benefit to those who had earlier served the State Government.

Arguments of the respondents

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had resigned from his service and therefore, the petitioner would be governed by Rule 101 of Jharkhand Pension Rules and therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7162/2012. The learned counsel has referred to Annexure-1 of the writ petition, which is an order passed in earlier round of writ application being W.P. (S) No. 417/2010 filed by the petitioner and he submits that the specific case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had filed representation for pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits as per Rule 134 of

Jharkhand Service Code and the petitioner has alleged that he had rendered the service at Dhanbad Collectorate from 02.01.1957 to 20.06.1969 and thereafter he resigned from there and on the very next day joined Bokaro Steel Limited.

15. The learned counsel submits that in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation that he had resigned from the service of the State and thereafter joined the Bokaro Steel Limited, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he never resigned from service especially when there is no statement in the writ petition mentioning that he had not resigned from service, although in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had resigned from service.

Rejoinder argument of the petitioner.

16. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner had filed application for getting his post retiral benefits by referring to Rule 134 of the Jharkhand Service code, but the same is not applicable and therefore, the consideration of Rule 134 in the impugned order is misplaced.

Findings of this Court

17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that this writ petition was earlier dismissed by an ex-parte order dated 17.01.2014 when the counsel for the petitioner was absent. The same was subject matter of LPA No. 59 of 2014 and the matter was remanded back vide judgement dated 16.07.2014. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner had, interalia, relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of "Ramayan Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others" passed in W.P.(S) No. 1257 of 2006 and it was claimed that the case of the petitioner is on similar circumstances. It was submitted before the Hon'ble Division Bench that the writ court had misconstrued the relieving order to mean that the petitioner had tendered his resignation, but the same was not factually correct. The argument of the respondents as recorded in the order passed in LPA No. 59 of 2014 was that the writ petitioner had resigned from service and it was also to be verified whether the decision relied upon by the writ petitioner which was passed in

W.P.(S) No. 1257 of 2006 (supra) was challenged by the State or not. The State also sought liberty to file a detailed reply in the matter.

18. Upon making enquiry through the computer and upon verification of the corresponding records, this court finds that the judgement passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 1257 of 2006 (supra) was challenged in L.P.A. No. 311 of 2009 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2010 as by the time the LPA was taken up, the writ petitioner was already paid all the pensionary benefits. The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench is quoted as under: -

"When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent submitted that in compliance of the impugned judgment, the respondent has paid all pensionary benefits and he is getting pension. He has also produced the documents issued by the Accountant General, Jharkhand.

In view of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent, there is no need to proceed any further in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed."

19. After remand, a supplementary affidavit dated 21.06.2011 was also filed in the writ records wherein the petitioner has filed a circular of the state government dated 31.07.1980 issued by the finance department wherein as per clause 18 of the circular, the minimum pensionable service has been mentioned to be 10 years/15 years for permanent /temporary government servant. Along with the supplementary affidavit, an order dated 19.12.2009 passed in WPS NO. 6487 of 2007 has also been brought on record.

20. So far as circular dated 31.07.1980 with regards of pensionable service is concerned, the same is not in dispute but the said circular does not deal with the consequences of resignation or consequences of taking up other employment with or without due permission or with or without retaining any lien. So far as the order passed in WPS NO. 6487 of 2007 is concerned, the same is on totally different set of facts. In the said case, the employee was working in Dhanbad collectorate and he had voluntarily opted for appointment in Zila Parishad and the specific case of his widow seeking family pension was that the cadre of employees working in the district collectorate subsequently merged with the cadre of person working in the Zila Parishad. The facts of the

present case is totally different where the petitioner had taken employment in different organization i.e Bokaro Steel Plant.

21. Another supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2014 wherein the petitioner has brought on record a copy of 'no objection certificate' issued by District Development Officer at Dhanbad mentioning that 'no objection certificate' was issued to the petitioner for getting better job in Bokaro Steel Project. On the basis of this document, the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner did not resign from his service while working under Government of Bihar. The petitioner has also relied upon a circular of the State of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 regarding payment of pensionary benefit to those who had earlier served the State Government.

22. It is the specific argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never resigned from the service rather the petitioner after joining the Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) applied for relieving him from the service of the respondent No. 3 and was accordingly relieved. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily relied upon following materials on record: -

i. order dated 16.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No. 59/2014 whereby the matter was remanded to the writ court for fresh consideration and it is submitted 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;

ii. application for relieving the petitioner was accepted by letter dated 24.09.1969 and consequently the petitioner was relieved from service and therefore the petitioner never resigned from service;

iii. supplementary affidavit dated 25.08.2014 enclosing a 'no objection certificate' issued by the respondent District Development Officer, Dhanbad;

iv. the circular issued by the State of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 regarding payment of pensionary benefit to those who had earlier served the State Government, and

v. The judgement passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar) and the petitioner claims that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by this judgement.

23. With regards to the judgment relied upon by the respondents, passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7162/2012 decided on 23.09.2022 dealing with rule 101 of the pension rules, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as the petitioner never resigned from the service. It is submitted that the petitioner, after joining the Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), applied for relieving him from the service of the respondent No. 3 and was accordingly relieved. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph-9 of the writ petition.

24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any provision of the pension rules in support of his case and has stated that the provisions of Rule 134 of the Pension Rules referred to in the impugned order, is misplaced.

25. This court is of the considered view that the order of remand dated 16.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No. 59/2014 is an open remand for considering the case afresh and no conclusive finding has been recorded on the point as to whether the petitioner had resigned from service or not before joining Bokaro Steel Plant and what would be the consequences of the relieving order. Thus, it is still to be decided by this court, on the basis of materials on record, as to whether the petitioner had resigned or not and what are the consequences of the letter of relieving the petitioner or issuance of the 'no objection certificate'.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application for relieving the petitioner was accepted by letter dated 24.09.1969 and therefore the petitioner never resigned from service.

27. The records of the writ petition reveal that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 02.01.1957 in Circle Office, Dhanbad and lastly, he was transferred to Chas block where he rendered his service till 20.06.1969. Admittedly, the petitioner had been in service of the State for more than 12 years.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined Bokaro Steel Plant on 21.06.1969 and superannuated on 31.01.1995 and he is not taking pension from Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL). As per the writ petition, after joining Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), the petitioner applied for relieving him from the services. Consequently, memo dated 24.09.1969 was issued from the office of District Development Officer, Dhanbad addressed to Block Development Officer, Chas asking the said authority to issue relieving order. It was also mentioned in the said memo dated 24.09.1969 that the petitioner had handed over the charge finally on 11.08.1969 and therefore, there was no difficulty in issuing relieving order in favour of the petitioner.

28. Thus, the aforesaid facts as mentioned in the writ petition reveal that as per the case of the petitioner himself, he had worked with the State only till 20.06.1969 and joined Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL) on 21.06.1969, but admittedly by that time, the petitioner was not relieved. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that after joining Bokaro Steel Plant (SAIL), the petitioner applied for relieving him from the service of the state and he handed over the charge finally only on 11.08.1969 and was relieved only on 24.09.1969. Thus, the petitioner was relieved by the state much after joining Bokaro Steel Plant. Admittedly, the petitioner was neither sent on deputation and then absorbed in Bokaro Steel Plant, nor sent in any public interest by the state to Bokaro Steel Plant. This court also finds that the petitioner joined a new job in Bokaro Steel Plant out of his free will and had no lien on his previous job under the then state of Bihar.

29. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed pursuant to the order 08.02.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010. In order to find out as to whether the petitioner had resigned from the services of the state or not , it is important to see the specific stand of the petitioner in the previous round of the writ petition.

30. The order passed by this Court in the case of the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010 has been placed on record vide Annexure- 1 wherein the submission of the petitioner was recorded as under:

"1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to move before respondent no. 1 by way of a fresh representation for getting pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits by continuation of the service as per Rule 134 of the Jharkhand Service Code, especially when the petitioner alleges that the petitioner had rendered the service at Dhanbad Collectorate from 02.01.1957 to 20.6.1969 and thereafter, he resigned from there and on the very next day joined the Bokaro Steel Limited."

(emphasis supplied)

31. The order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010, clearly records that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had rendered the service at Dhanbad Collectorate from 02.01.1957 to 20.6.1969 and thereafter, he resigned from there and on the very next day joined the Bokaro Steel Limited. The aforesaid order not only records the specific stand of the petitioner that he had resigned but it also records that the petitioner had resigned on 20.6.1969 and joined Bokaro Steel Plant on the very next day.

32. It is also important to note that in the impugned order also it has been recorded that the petitioner resigned from service and then joined Bokaro Steel Plant. However, this fact as recorded in the impugned order has not been challenged/denied by the petitioner in the writ petition. It has also not been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner never resigned from service of the state. It was only after the order of remand by the Hon'ble Division bench, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit dated 25.08.2014 stating at para 2 thereof that the petitioner had not resigned from service working under the Government of Bihar and annexed a 'no objection certificate' (Annexure-A).

33. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner having taken a specific stand in the earlier round of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010 that the petitioner had resigned on 20.6.1969 and joined Bokaro Steel Plant on the very next day ; finding having been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had resigned and such finding having not even been challenged in the writ petition, it is not open for the petitioner to take contrary stand and thereby

deny the factum of resignation and assert that the petitioner did not resign. Such stand clearly appears to be an afterthought and in direct conflict with the earlier stand taken by the petitioner. However, the consequence of issuance of 'no objection certificate' is required to be examined.

34. The 'no objection certificate' (Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner) has been issued by the respondent District Development Officer, Dhanbad. Neither the date of 'no objection certificate' has been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit nor its year of issuance is clear from the perusal of 'no objection certificate'. It has been issued on 29th of April but year of its issuance has not been mentioned.

The content of 'no objection certificate', however, is quoted as under:

"NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE No objection certificate is hereby granted to Shri Basdeo Prasad Triyar, L.D. Assistant, Chas Block for getting better job in Bokaro Steel Project."

35. The 'no objection certificate' can neither be said to be a letter relieving the petitioner nor the same can be said to be a letter for sending the petitioner on deputation to Bokaro Steel Plant, rather the same only reflects that the District Development Officer, Dhanbad had no objection if the petitioner gets a better job in Bokaro Steel Project. There is no mention of any lien retained by the petitioner nor there is any mention that the petitioner would be entitled to any pension. The relevance of this aspect of the matter will be clear when the various judgements are considered in the later part of this judgement.

36. This court is of the considered view that merely because the then state of Bihar had 'no objection' to petitioner taking up new job in Bokaro Steel Plant, the same by itself does not entitle the petitioner for post-retirement benefits from the state for the services rendered in the state government prior to joining Bokaro Steel Plant.

37. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar) and in the said

judgement, the circular issued by the State of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 regarding payment of pensionary benefit to those who had earlier served the State Government, has been considered.

38. It is important to note that this court, while deciding the judgement passed in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar), recorded that the case of the petitioner of the said case was covered by the ratio of the earlier judgement passed in another case i.e. Raj Jogendra Bahadur Sinha [CWJC No. 1518 of 1992 ( R)]

39. Upon perusal of the judgement passed in the case of Raj Jogendra Bahadur Sinha [CWJC No. 1518 of 1992 ( R)], this court finds that the question involved in the said case was-

Whether the petitioner, who was initially in the services of the state government as Assistant Teacher and later appointed as teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, by virtue of various circulars issued by the Central Government and Kendriya Vidlaya, was entitled to benefit of the period in the state government prior to absorption in the services of the central government, towards the pensionary benefit?

The petitioner of the said case was appointed in the state government and upon being sent on deputation to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, he was absorbed in the services of the Kendriya Vidyalaya on permanent basis and superannuated from service of Central School, Ranchi and he was claiming the pensionary benefit for the period he was in service of the State Government from 09.07.1956 to 24.04.1966. The petitioner of the said case claimed the pensionary benefit on the basis of the circular dated 29.07.1986 issued on the subject 'counting of service for purposes of pension of employees of central government and central autonomous bodies seeking absorption in autonomous bodies under state government and vice versa'. The petitioner of the said case also relied upon certain communications between the two employers regarding absorption and counting of past services of the petitioner.

The Hon'ble court after considering the various circulars, held that such employees who had rendered services in the state government, were required to give certificate and attest the period of services and

while doing so, the facts were required to be stated very clearly. One among such facts was as to whether at the time of leaving the services of the state government, the concerned employee was given some benefit towards pension. In the said case, the respondents were directed to decide the pending representation in the light of the observations.

40. In the present case, the no objection certificate issued to the petitioner only mentions that the state had no objection if the petitioner takes up new employment. It does not confer/retain any right of the petitioner to receive pension from the state after attaining superannuation from the new employment under Bokaro steel plant. This Court is of the considered view that the judgment passed in the case of Raj Jogendra Bahadur Sinha [CWJC No. 1518 of 1992 ( R)] does not apply to the facts of this case as the present case is not a case of absorption in subsequent employment in Bokaro Steel Plant and no such certificate, as was available in the said case, has been produced by the petitioner of this case. The 'no objection certificate' relied upon by the petitioner is of no consequence as it does not conform to the requirement of certificate as laid down by this court in the judgement of Raj Jogendra Bahadur Sinha (supra).

41. The aforesaid judgement of Raj Jogendra Bahadur Sinha (supra) was followed in the judgement relied upon by the petitioner passed in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar) wherein the specific case of the petitioner as recorded in various sub-paras of para 2 of the judgement, was that the petitioner had joined BCCL after being relieved from duty by the state government and was also granted lien on his post vide letter dated 21.03.1983.

The judgement passed in W.P. (S) No. 1257/2006 decided on 10.09.2008 (Ramayan Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar) also does not apply to the facts of the present case. The material distinguishing fact is that the petitioner of the said case was also granted lien on his post by specific letter dated 21.03.1983 issued by the state, which is not the case in the present writ petition.

42. So far as the circular issued by the state of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 is concerned , it clearly provides that the pension will be paid by the subsequent employer from where the employee retires and in such cases the concerned department has to certify the period of service rendered by the employee and also clearly state as to whether any pensionary benefits have been paid or not. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming pension from the state and not from the subsequent employer i.e Bokaro Steel Plant. Accordingly, the circular issued by the state of Bihar dated 19.03.1990 does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

43. In view of the aforesaid findings, this court is of the considered view that none of the five materials on record and relied upon by the petitioner and enumerated in para 22 above help the petitioner in any manner to claim post retirement benefits from the respondents.

44. Before parting with the judgement, it is important to discuss the impugned order and the provision of the pension rule which would govern the petitioner having held as above that the petitioner had resigned from the services of the state, he neither retained any lien, nor was sent on deputation and absorbed in Bokaro Steel Plant.

45. The order passed in the earlier round of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010, reveals that the petitioner had asserted that he has the right of getting pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits by continuation of the service as per Rule 134 of the Jharkhand Service Code. The representation filed pursuant to order dated 08.02.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2010 has also been annexed by the petitioner in this writ petition as Annexure- 4. In his representation also the petitioner relied upon Rule 134 of the pension rules and asserted that upon completion of 12 years of service, the petitioner was entitled for pension, gratuity etc. from the State Government. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner had relied upon rule 134 and 135 of the Pension rules and also a circular dated 18.02.1974. In the rejoinder arguments before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly submitted that Rule 134 is not applicable and therefore, the consideration of Rule 134 in the impugned order is misplaced. This

court finds that Rule 134/135 of the Pension Rules were considered in the impugned order as the petitioner had relied upon those rules. So far as circular dated 18.02.1974 is concerned, the same has neither been annexed with the writ petition nor has been relied upon by the petitioner in the writ records nor the same has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing. However, the impugned order reflects that the said circular dated 18.02.1974 was relied upon by the petitioner before the respondent authority who has held by a reasoned order that the circular dated 18.02.1974 is not applicable and the same is applicable in the circumstances when the government employee is sent on deputation in government undertaking and is absorbed in such undertaking. Admittedly, the present case is not a case of sending the petitioner on deputation to Bokaro Steel Plant or upon been sent on deputation, absorption in Bokaro steel plant. It has been recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted his resignation and after giving resignation, the petitioner voluntarily joined the services of Bokaro Steel Limited and thus, the petitioner was never sent for deputation to the public sector organization nor the petitioner was absorbed in Bokaro Steel Limited.

46. Rule 134 and Rule 135 of the Pension Rules are quoted as under:

"134(a) A retiring pension is granted to a government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for thirty years or such less time as may for any special class of Government servants be prescribed.

(b) A retiring pension is also granted to Government servant who is required to retire after completing 25 years of qualifying service or more or any other prescribed period of service.

135. Government servants mentioned in rule 5 are entitled, on their resignation being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing qualifying service of not less than 25 years. Note 1...

Note 2...

Note 3..."

47. Upon perusal of Rule 134/135 of the Pension Rules, there can be no doubt that the same do not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. The said rules do not apply to the facts and circumstances

of the case of the petitioner as the petitioner claims to have rendered about 12 years of service in the state government before joining Bokaro steel plant.

48. In view of the fact that the petitioner is neither relying upon the provision of Rule 134/135 of the pension rules nor is relying upon the circular dated 18.02.1974, which were relied upon by the petitioner before the respondent authority and the claim of the petitioner based on such provision of law/circular has been rejected by a detailed well- reasoned order, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order so far as these aspects of the matter is concerned. Meaning thereby the provisions of Rule 134/135 and /or circular dated 18.02.1974 do not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

49. In view of the finding recorded above that the petitioner had resigned from service of the state and then taken up a new employment without retaining any lien and/or was never sent for deputation and then absorbed in Bokaro steel plant, this court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgement passed by this court in WP(S) No. 7162 of 2012 decided on 23.09.2022. In the said case also, the petitioner had resigned from the services of the state and had taken up employment in Bokaro Steel plant. Para 6 to 9 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under: -

"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked as a teacher for a period more than 10 years under the State of Jharkhand from 10.04.1973 till the date of his resignation on 09.06.1983 and had taken up another employment under Bokaro Steel Plant.

7. Rule 101 of Jharkhand Pension Rule is quoted as under:

"101. (a) Resignation of the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.

(b) Resignation of an appointment [with the approval of the appointing authority] to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service."

8. Rule 101(a) of Jharkhand Pension Rule clearly provides that resignation of the public service entails forfeiture of past

service. Rule 101(b) also provides and exception to rule 101(a) where resignation of an appointment [with the approval of the appointing authority] to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service. The service of the petitioner under Bokaro Steel Plant has nothing to do with service of the petitioner under State of Jharkhand and both are completely delinked, thus the case of the petitioner does not fall under Rule 101(b).

9. In view of the clear provision of Rule 101(a) of Jharkhand Pension Rules, resignation of the petitioner has led to forfeiture of his past service and therefore prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension on the sole ground that he had served the State of Jharkhand for a period more than 10 years, is devoid of any merit."