- (1.) A pensioner since 16 years is knocking at the doors of the court of justice and the executive in search of his hard earned pension and is being rebuffed by these who would meet the same fate by the passage of time and yet with his meagre resources, he has been dragged to the apex court for the second time after a lapse of 12 years during which abominably long period the mandamus of this Court has been treated as a scrap of paper. What a pity, and what helplessness
(2.) The facts relevant to the disposal of this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution are set out in details in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) Supp SCR 634 : (AIR 1971 SC 1409) and therefore, need not be recapitulated here. A Constitution Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice Mr. Sikri issued a mandamus in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner which reads as under : "The order dated Aug. 5, 1966 declaring under R. 76 of the Service Code that the petitioner has ceased to be in government employ is set aside and quashed. The order dated June 12, 1968 stating that under Rule 46 of the Pension Rules, the Department is unable to grant the petitioner pension is also set aside and quashed. As the petitioner himself claim that he has been retired from service on superannuation, a writ of mandamus will be issued to the respondents directing them to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law." The opinion of the Court was rendered on May 4, 1971 and since then petitioner is being pushed from pillar to post by various departments of the State of Bihar ultimately compelling him to knock at the door of this Court.
(3.) It may be mentioned in passing that the petitioner joined service on Sept. 1, 1928 and admittedly he has retired on superannuation on Jan. 10, 1967. He is entitled to pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The dispute is whether the petitioner is a member of the Bihar Education Service and what ought to be the method of computation of his pension On the first point, the matter is no more res integra because the Constitution Bench held that a reference to R. 5 of the Pension Rules shows that the officers mentioned therein are entitled to pension. It was further held that there is no controversy that the petitioner is an officer in the Education Department of the Bihar Education Service, and this department is shown at Item No. 3 of the Schedule to R. 5. Therefore, the controversy is concluded by decision between the parties that the petitioner is a member of Bihar Education Service and that under R. 5 of the Pension Rules, he is entitled to pension. 3-A. After the mandamus was issued by this Court, the petitioner approached amongst others the then Chief Minister of Bihar late Shri Kedar Pandey for implementing and giving effect to the mandamus, issued by the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister directed that even though more than two years have elapsed since the issuance of the mandamus and the Chief Minister himself directed ten months prior to June 25, 1973 for payment of the claim of the petitioner as soon as possible and had insisted upon a weekly progress report on the processing of the file to be submitted to him, yet even the Chief Minister recorded his helplessness that he neither received the weekly report nor the mandamus has been implemented nor even the file was submitted to the Chief Minister for his perusal. If this be the plight of the Chief Minister of a popularly elected government what to talk of the lesser fly and what tears can be shed for a man in position of the petitioner who having rendered service for nearly 40 years was chasing the mirage for a paltry pension. The Chief Minister apprehended that it is quite likely that not only the officers responsible for this mess but even the State Government may be called upon by the Supreme Court to explain the disregard of the mandamus. He then made a peremptory order that the file be submitted for order.;