18 November 1996
Supreme Court
Download

BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs AKHIL KRISHNA MITRA

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-015066-015066 / 1996
Diary number: 76356 / 1994


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AKHIL KRISHNA MITRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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 Government servant in June 1950 and was sent on Deputation  to the  Appellant-Board on August 4, 1959. He was absorbed  in the  Electricity 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 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 the  respondent-employee. It  is contended by respondent-employee that  the respondent had not voluntarily gone on  deputation, but  when we read out the averment made in the  affidavit filed  in the  High Court, we find that he had not  specifically stated so. Subsequently, he so pleaded in the  counter affidavit  filed in  this Court  that he was sent on  deputation to  the Electricity  Board  against  his wishes. Under  these circumstances,  we  cannot  decide  the controversy  in   this  appeal  though  the  respondent  has asserted 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  from June  1950 to  august 1959.  In view of the fact that  this is  a disputed  question, appropriate course would  be   that  the   respondent-employee  should  make  a

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 Government. 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.