Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.

Patna High Court – Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Chitranjan Jha & Ors on 13 October, 2011
                       Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3433 of 2010
                                     Chitranjan Jha & Anr.
                                  The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Civil Review No.98 of 2011
(LPA 688/2009)
The State Of Bihar & Ors
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

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

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


(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

(Shivaji Pandey, J.)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.157 seconds.