Retiral dues must be revised and paid by the parent state for employees retired prior to state reorganization.

The petitioner, a retired employee who served prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand, approached the High Court seeking payment of retiral dues based on a revised pay scale effective from 11.06.1996.

The petitioner retired in 1998 while the State of Jharkhand was created later on 15.11.2000.

The Accountant General (Bihar) contended that the matter fell under Jharkhand’s jurisdiction, whereas the Executive Engineer (Jharkhand) filed a counter-affidavit stating that since the petitioner retired as an employee of the State of Bihar and never worked under the Government of Jharkhand, he remains a pensioner of Bihar.

The petitioner’s name appeared at serial No. 19 in the list of employees deemed as Junior Engineers from 11.06.1996 pursuant to departmental orders.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to retiral dues based on the revised pay scale effective from 11.06.1996 in light of previous judicial mandates.

2. Whether the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand is the competent authority to process and authorize the revised pensionary benefits.

The court applied the principles of administrative accountability and the legal precedents set by the Division Bench in LPA No. 941 of 1996 (and related matters 913, 914, and 1094 of 1996), which mandated the recognition of certain employees as Junior Engineers effective from 11.06.1996.

It also considered the jurisdictional framework following the Bihar Reorganisation Act, noting that liability for pensioners depends on the state of retirement and service history.

The court analyzed the contradictory stances of the two states regarding jurisdiction and noted the admission by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division No. 2, Garhwa (Jharkhand), that the petitioner retired in 1998—before the bifurcation of the state—and thus never served the State of Jharkhand.

The court found that the petitioner remained a pensioner of the State of Bihar and linked the petitioner's specific placement (Serial No. 19) in the departmental list to the revision orders issued by the Engineer in Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Bihar.

It determined that since the necessary communications and service records were already being exchanged between the departments, the Accountant General of Bihar held the ultimate authority to authorize the pension revision.

The court ordered the Accountant General to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receipt of the judgment with the mandate that if the claim is found valid, the consequential authority letter be issued within the same stipulated period.