Pramod Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10897 of 2016 =========================================================== Pramod Jha, Son of Sri Amar Jha, Resident of Village- Riga, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer (North) Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Sitamarhi.
4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Sitamarhi.
5. The Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. 25 For the Accountant Genera :
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The claim of the petitioner is that despite having worked in the work charge establishment from 09.07.1982 till 31.08.2013 i.e., for more than 31 years, he has been denied his pensionay benefits. It is submitted that the ground taken is that the service of the petitioner was never regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Md. Matin & Anr. in L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2015 dated 23.06.2016 by which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10897 of 2016 dt.16-09-2016 2/2 claim for pension of an identically situated person had been allowed. He also relies upon another Division Bench judgment in the case of Saraswati Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 21724 of 2012 dated 21.04.2015.
Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute the fact that the present case is similar to that of L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2015.
Accordingly, adopting the reasoning given in the order dated 23.06.2015 passed in L.P.A. No. 1211 of 2015 as well as order dated 21.04.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21724 of 2012, the writ petition stands allowed in similar terms. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA