Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AKHIL KRISHNA MITRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the High Court of Patna, made on December 7.1993 in CWJC
no 11515/92.
The admitted position is that the respondent was
appointed as a Government servant in June 1950 and was sent
on Deputation to the Appellant-Board on August 4, 1959. He
was absorbed in the Electricity Board on November 25, 1970
and retired from service on April 30, 1984. The question is
: as to for which period the Board is liable to pay the
pension to the respondent? The High Court found that since
he was on deputation from the Government service from June
1950 to August 1959, the appellant-board should pay the
pension and recover proportionately the pension from the
Government. The Government had declined to bear that burden
and, therefore, the Board has come up in appeal in this
matter. we have issued the notice to the State Government.
The State Government have filed the counter. It is stated in
the counter affidavit that under Bihar pension Rules Part 2
Appendix 5-2(iii), unless a Government servant completes 10
years of service in the State Government service, he is not
entitled to the pension proportionately. thereafter, notice
was issued to the respondent-employee. It is contended by
respondent-employee that the respondent had not voluntarily
gone on deputation, but when we read out the averment made
in the affidavit filed in the High Court, we find that he
had not specifically stated so. Subsequently, he so pleaded
in the counter affidavit filed in this Court that he was
sent on deputation to the Electricity Board against his
wishes. Under these circumstances, we cannot decide the
controversy in this appeal though the respondent has
asserted to that effect. admittedly, for the period the
respondent was under the Board’s service, he is entitled to
the pension and is being paid w.e.f. the month in which he
was sent on deputation. The actual controversy pertains to
the period from June 1950 to august 1959. In view of the
fact that this is a disputed question, appropriate course
would be that the respondent-employee should make a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
representation to the Government and Bihar State Government
would consider and dispose of the representation with
speaking order, according to law, within a period of three
months from the date of the representation.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. It is stated
that in similar situation some persons whose names were
furnished in the application were granted benefits by the
Government. It appears that the Board has paid the amount
pursuant to the direction of the High Court; it would be for
the Board to approach the High Court and take appropriate
direction.