SH. BAU NATH GUPTA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 12-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SH. BAU NATH GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 : Chapter 3 Rule 14-Ap-
plicability of 
C 
Service Law-Pension-Government circular dated 31st March, 
1982-Employe~Appointment on temporary basis in Government of 
U.P.-Subsequent regular appointment in State of Bihar-Service rendered in 
fonner State 11ot qualifyi11g for pe11sion u11der Ru/es-Claim for pe11sion and 
interest 011 delayed payment-Writ for-Dismissal by High Court-Ap-
peal-Held since the appellant has not re11dered JO years of qualifyi11g service, 
D he is not eligible for proportionate pensio11 from the State of U.P. even if it is 
assumed, without deciding whether Central rule would apply to a Government 
seroant under twn State Goveniments, one on teniporary basis and the other 
as permanent employee. 
E 
Service Law-Pension-Delay i11 payment-Claim for interest-No ex-
planation as to the grou11ds on which delay had occasioned-Employee 
directed to file petition before State Government-Enquiry-Employee to be 
paid interest if Government was respo11Sible for delay. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10914 of 
F 
1996. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.95 of the Patna High Court 
. in C.W.P. being C.W.J.C. No. 11563 of 1993. 
R.K. Jain, Rakesh Garg and S.P. Sharma for the Appellant. 
AB. Rohtagi and N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advs., B.B. Singh, R.B. Misra, 
Kamalendra Mishra and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
Leave granted. 
566 
B.N.GUPTAv. STATE 
567 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The appellant was appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Master 
on December 9, 1995 in the Directorate of Industries, Government of U.P. 
and was posted at Kanpur. After working for four years he was selected 
A 
by Bihar Public Service Commission by direct recruitment and was ap-
B 
pointed in the Government Polytechnic under the Department of Science 
and Technology on January 6, 1959 and he resigned from the. U .P. Service 
w.e.f. January 7, 1959. He was appointed, thereafter, in the services of the 
Government of Bihar. He retired w.e.f. December 1, 1982 while working 
in the workshop as Superintendent of the Government Polytechnic at 
Patna. A dispute arose as regards his entitlement for pension and propor-
C 
tionate distribution of pension between the State of U.P. and the Govern-
ment of Bihar. He wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Patna High Court 
on November 28, 1993 on the basis of a judgment rendered by that Court 
on August 4, 1992 stating that he would be entitled to interest on the 
delayed payment of pension and gratuity. The High Court instead of D 
treating that letter as a writ petition directed the appellant to make a 
representation to the Government and the Government would consider 
and dispose of the claim for payment in that behalf. When the interest was 
not paid on pension quantified, the appellant filed the present writ petition 
in the High Court claiming proportionate pension from U.P. Government 
and al>o for interest. In CWJC No. 11563/93 by judgment dated July 11, E 
1995 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special 
leave. 
As regards the entitlement for proportionate pension from the State 
of U.P. for the period he served between December 9, 1955 to January 7, 
F 
1959, Shri R.K. Jain learned Senior counsel for the appellant, placing 
reliance on the letter written by the Union of India dated March 31, 1982 
(at page 39 of the paper book), contended that the appellant is entitled to 
the proportionate pension even for temporary service rendered by him. 
Shri A.B. Rohtagi, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-State of U .P ., G 
contended that prior to 1.7.1989 the temporary Government servants were 
not eligible for any pension under the provisions of Rule 368 of the Civil 
Service Pension Rules. The Government have considered and decided on 
the said date that proportionate pension would be granted if the Govern-
ment servant has put in qualifying temporary service of at least 10 years. 
Since the appellant had not put in the qualifying service, he is not eligible 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
for the pension. Shri fain contends that this rule has no application for the 
reason that it has come into force with effect from 1.7.89. In view of the 
circular of the Government of India r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.