ST ATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus B.S. MATHUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 24-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
B.S. MATHUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
AUGUST 24, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
Rajendra Aglicultural Unive1:~ity Act, 1971: Sections 39( 19)-Scope of 
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950: Rule 16l(b)-Scope of 
C 
Se1vice Law. 
Pension-State Government Employees-Deputation to Univer-
sity-Absorption-Resignation from Govemment se1vice-State liability to pay 
prop01tionate pension under section 39( 19 )-Held, confined to last drawn pay 
D and sum total as envisaged in proviso to sub-rule (b) of Rule 161. 
Respondents, while working as Government servant in the appellant-
State, went on deputation to the Rajendra Agricultural University. After 
their absorption in the University they resigned from Government service. 
On their retirement from the University, the Government disowned the 
E 
liability to pay pension on the ground that (i) under section 39(20) of the 
Rajendra Agricultural University Act. 1971 the State was not liable to pay 
any pension since the respondents had resigned and were re- employed in 
the University; (ii) in view of Rule 161(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 
the respondents were not entitled to any pension in excess of the pension 
F 
G 
calculable on the last substantive pay drawn by them. The High Court, 
relying on section 39(19) of the 1971 Act held that Government was liable 
~o pay proportionate pension to the respondents. The State preferred 
appeals before this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 39(19) of the Rajendra Agricultural University · 
Act, 1971 clearly indicates that if a Government servant, while on deputa-
tion to the University, had chosen to resign from Government service and 
was absorbed in the University service the State shall bear proportionate 
pension/compensation payable to such a former Government servant. At 
H what rate, the University and the Government would proportionately bear 
48 
•-
i I 
\.. 
-
STATE v. RS.MATHUR 
49 
\ 
~ 
the compensation/proportionate pension has not been dealt with under the A 
Act. Therefore, necessarily the Government has to fall back upon Rule 
16l(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1:950. (51-C-D] 
2. f\ reading of Rule 161(b) clearly indicates that by a fiction it would 
apply to the University employees of the erstwhile Government servant 
deeming them to be re-employed in the University. The Proviso makes it B 
clear that the sum total of pay plus pension would not exceed the substan-
tive pay last drawn by him before discharge. In other words, if a Govern-
ment servant opts for absorption in University service after resignation 
from Government service he is entitled to the sum total of pay plus pension 
which would not exceed the substantive pay last drawn by him before he C 
had tendered his resignation and was discharged by the Government. The 
proportionate pension of such Government employee should be calculated 
with reference to the last drawn pay of the Government employee at the 
time of acceptance of his resignation by the Government. The rest of the 
benefits, which such an employee would get with reference to the last drawn O 
pay on his retirement from the University service on llttaining superan-
nuation would not be borne by the Government. [52-A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7874 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.91 of the Patna High 
Court in C.W.J.C. 911 of 1991 (R). 
B.B. Singh for the Appellants. 
E 
D.P. Mukherjee, Sanjoy Kr. Ghosh and B.K. Gupta for the Respon-
F 
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel for the parties. These appeals by special 
leave arise from the order dated December 18, 1991 of the Division Bench 
of Patna High Court at Ranchi in C.W.J.C. No. 911/91. 
G 
The facts are not. in dispute. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a 
Government servant on April 13, 1955 and at the relevant time when he H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A went on deputation he was Senior Research Assistant working in the 
Agriculture Department. He was transferred i.e. sent on deputation to the 
Rajendra Agricultural Uni:rersity. He tendered his resignation in 1977 and 
was absorbed as an employee of the University. Similarly, respondents 2-9, 
while working as Government servants, went on deputation to the ·Rajendra 
B 
c 
University and they resigned in 1981 and were absorbed as University 
employees. On their retirement, a ques

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