Patna High Court
Raj Kumari Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2023
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17159 of 2022
======================================================
Raj Kumari Devi, Wife of Binod Ram, Resident of Ambedkar Colony, Pokhra
Mohalla, Hajipur P.S.- Hajipur Town, Dist- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali, Bihar.
5. The Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali, Bihar.
6. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.
7. The District Provident Fund Officer, Vaishali.
8. The Accountant General of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vasant Vikas, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG-7
Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-7
For the Accountant General : Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-11-2023
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned counsel for the Hajipur Nagar Parishad and
learned counsel for the State as well as Accountant General.
2. The petitioner, who claimed herself to be a
retired "Safai Karamchari" of Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, filed the
instant writ petition seeking quashing of the letter no. 1344
dated 25.06.2019 whereby the pensionery claim of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17159 of 2022 dt.24-11-2023
2/6
has been out rightly rejected by the respondent nos.4 and 5. The
petitioner also sought a direction upon the concerned
respondent(s) to pay all her pensionary claims and consequential
benefits from the retrospective effect.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
petitioner joined the Nagar Parishad, Hajipur on 17.01.1974 on
the post of "Sweeper" and retired on 31.01.2013 as "Safai
Karamchari". It is further submitted that while she was working
as "Safai Karamchari", the Bihar Municipal Officers and
Servants Pension Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Rule 1987') came into effect. In terms of rule 4 of Rule, 1987,
the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hajipur vide his
letter no. 498 dated 07.06.1993 invited option from all the
willing employees, who wanted to avail the benefit of pension
scheme, within a period of fifteen days.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the
aforesaid letter inviting option, the petitioner along with others
had opted for the pension through the aegis of their union,
namely, Nagarpalika Karamchari Sangh under Bihar Local
Bodies Employees Federation, Patna vide letter dated
16.06.1993
, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-4 to the
writ petition. Despite the option availed by the petitioner, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17159 of 2022 dt.24-11-2023
benefit of pension scheme under Rule, 1987 has not been
allowed and the petitioner has been superannuated way back in
the year 2013 itself.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew
the attention of this Court to the order of the Hon'ble Court
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9588 of 2016 and in L.P.A. No. 960 of
2007, respectively. Referring to the note of the aforesaid orders,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bihar Local
Bodies Employees Federation, Hajipur, filed writ petition
seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of
the employees of the Nagar Parishad for grant of pension and
the learned Single Judge taking note of the judgment rendered
by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State
of Bihar vs. Bhuwan and another [L.P.A. No. 960 of 2007],
has disposed of the writ petition. In terms of the aforesaid order,
though the grievance of the members of Federation was duly
considered, but the same was negatived by the order dated
25.06.2019 (Annexure-1), which is the order impugned herein.
6. While assailing the order impugned, it is
submitted that the Executive Officer, in course of passing the
impugned order has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner
has/had filed his timely option for the pension scheme under
Patna High Court CWJC No.17159 of 2022 dt.24-11-2023
Rule, 1987, thus the impugned order is not sustainable in any
view of the matter.
7. Further reliance has also been made on a
judgment rendered in the case of Maruf @ Mahammad Maruf
@ Maruf Mian vs. State of Bihar & Others [C.W.J.C. No.
10050 of 2019], wherein the learned Single Judge while
considering the similar nature of grievance has disposed of the
writ petition in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Sanichari Devi & Ors. vs. Ara Municipal
Corporation & Ors.[2015(1) PLJR (SC)370]. While disposing
of the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Single Judge has
directed the concerned respondents to ensure the payment of all
retiral dues of the petitioner within a maximum period of four
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order.
8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the case of the petitioner is also identical to that of Maruf @
Mahammad Maruf @ Maruf Mian (supra) based on parity.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Nagar
Parishad, Hajipur, submitted across the Board that the grievance
of the employees of the Nagar Parishad, Hajipur was duly
considered in the light of the provisions of Rule, 1987 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17159 of 2022 dt.24-11-2023
having found no option on the part of the petitioner, the order
has been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that
even in the case of Sanichari Devi (supra), the Apex Court has
observed that the person shall be entitled for the pension w.e.f.
the date of submission of his/her option, but in the present case,
the petitioner has never submitted any option for pension in
terms of the Rule, 1987. He lastly submits that if the petitioner
claims her case is at par with the case of Maruf @ Mahammad
Maruf @ Maruf Mian (supra) she may file a representation
along with the order of the learned coordinate Bench of this
Court and thus her grievance shall also be considered and if it
would be found merit consideration, the same shall be disposed
of in accordance with law.
10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it
appears that the option of the employee for pension scheme filed
through Bihar Local Bodies Employees Federation, as contained
in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, has not been considered by
the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur, thus the
consideration of the claim of the petitioner is not at all any
consideration in law as well as on facts. It is also the fact that
now a decade has lapsed after retirement of the petitioner, thus,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17159 of 2022 dt.24-11-2023
it would be apt and proper for the ends of justice to dispose of
the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a
representation along with the order of the learned co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on which parity has been sought for, as also
with the copy of the option filed through the Federation,
preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
11. In case, such a representation is filed,
respondent no.4, (Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Hajipur) shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and
speaking order without being prejudiced by the order impugned
dated 25.06.2019, as contained in Annexure-1.
12. Needless to observe that in case, any similarly
situated person has been allowed the pensionary benefits, the
same benefit shall be accorded to the petitioner.
13. This disposes the present writ petition.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.11.2023
Transmission Date NA
