A
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
v.
AKHIL KRISHNA MITRA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 18, 1996
8
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Lau1 :
Pension--Employee sened under two orga11isations-Employer 's
C liability to share proportionate burden of employee's pension-Employee
served under State Government of Bihar fi"om 1950 to 1959 and from 1959
to 1984 with Bihar State Electricity Board-Board giving pension for the
period of service rendered with it-State Government declining to share
the burden for the period 1950 to 1959-Held, employee would make a
representation to State Governme/1/ which would dispose of the same with
D a speaking order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15066 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.93 of the Patna High Court
E in C.W.J.C. No. 11515 of 1992.
F
G
Pramod Swamp for the Appellant.
B.B. Singh and D.P. Mukherjee for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
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
H Government servant in June 1950 and was sent on Deputation to the
742
BIHAR STA TE ELECTRICITY BD. v. A.K. MITRA
743
Appellant-Board on August 4, 1959. He was absorbed in the Electricity A
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 B
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 C
the respondent-employee. It is contended by respondent-employee that
the respondent had not voluntarily gone on deputation but when we read
out the averments made in the affidavit filed in the High Court, we find
that he had not specifically stated so. Subsequently, he so pleaded in !he
counter affidavit filed in this Court that he was sent on deputation to the
Electricity Board against his wishes. Under these circumstances, we cannot D
decide the controversy in this appeal though the respondent has asse11ed 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 fl'Om June 1950 to August 1959. In view of the fact that this is a
disputed question, appropriate course would be that the respondent- E
employee should make a 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 Governme~t. 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.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
F
G
Lex