IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3433 of 2010
Chitranjan Jha & Anr.
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors.
----------------------------------
with
Civil Review No.98 of 2011
IN
(LPA 688/2009)
The State Of Bihar & Ors
Versus
Chitranjan Jha & Ors
———————————-
10 13-10-2011 Heard the parties.
The review application preferred by the State
and contempt petition preferred on behalf of appellants
of LPA no. 688/2009 have been heard together because
they relate to a Division Bench judgement and order
dated 26-10-2010 whereby one LPA preferred by the
State bearing no. 373/2004 and other preferred by the
petitioners of contempt petition were allowed. On
account of Division Bench judgement a grievance has
been raised on behalf of petitioners of contempt
petition that opposite parties are violating the order of
the Division Bench by not paying pension and other
retiral dues of the original writ petitioner, Umakant
Jha. On the other hand in the review application the
State has taken the stand that the order allowing LPA
2
no. 688/2009 deserves to be reviewed and that LPA
should be dismissed.
Paragraph 21 of the Division Bench
judgement (annexure-1) discloses that LPA no.
688/2009 was allowed on a concession made by
learned counsel for the State that since the concerned
employee had completed 25 years of service when his
resignation was accepted, his case would be covered by
Rule 135 of Bihar Pension Rules and, therefore, the
employee shall be entitled to all the retiral benefits.
On examining the provisions of Rule 135 of
Bihar Pension Rules, it is apparent that the concerned
employee was not entitled to benefit of that Rule
because that applies only to Government servants
mentioned in Rule 5 which contains schedule of
services which does not include the service to which
the employee concerned belonged.
In our considered view, LPA no. 688/2009
has been disposed of without considering the relevant
provisions in the Bihar Pension Rules and, hence, the
order allowing LPA no. 688/2009 requires to be
3
reviewed and recalled. Accordingly, we allow the
review application and recall the judgement and order
dated 27-1-2010 insofar as it relates to and allows LPA
no. 688/2009. As a result, LPA no. 688/2009 shall be
restored to its original file and shall be listed for
hearing under the appropriate heading before any
appropriate Bench after two weeks.
In view of aforesaid order, nothing remains
to be implemented through the contempt petition.
Hence the contempt petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Shivaji Pandey, J.)
BKS/-
