Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) I have heard both sides. On 27.08.2009 the following order was passed in this writ petition: Post retirement benefits are not charity by the State. It is a right earned by the employee upon completing qualifying period of service, and an employee can be deprived of the aforesaid right only if there is an express provision to that effect which must be exist prior to the date on which the benefit has been earned. The stand of the respondent appears to be that because there is no scheme for voluntary retirement for teachers like the petitioner, therefore, post retirement benefits are being denied as she has wrongly obtained voluntary retirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the qualifying period of service. The respondents are given a last opportunity to show any Government order or notification or circular within two weeks, in which there is prohibition that if a teacher, like the petitioner, resigns after completing qualifying period of service, post retirement benefits will not be payable. List immediately after two weeks.
(2.) IN response, a supplementary affidavit of Prem Prakash Sinha, Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Ranchi has been filed on 9.10.2009 which encloses a copy of the Bihar Government Order No. 1775 dated 30.08.1930. After going through this order I do not find the same to be applicable at all. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of this case have already been mentioned in the order quoted above.
(3.) FIRSTLY , the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was not a unilateral act on his part. It was accepted by the College Management consequent upon which the petitioner was allowed to retire. Therefore, now at the stage of grant or denial of pensionary benefits or post retirement benefits it is a little difficult to accept this U -turn taken by the respondents saying that voluntary retirement was not permissible. The respondents having allowed the petitioner to retire voluntarily pursuant to the petitioner's request, and the respondents not being in a position to put the clock back by allowing the petitioner now to serve the remainder of his service period, in such a situation, permitting the respondents to deny the post retirement benefits on the aforesaid ground of lack of provision for voluntary retirement would be allowing the respondents to a very unfair advantage by denying the earned benefits to the petitioner.;