D.N.Patel - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has retired from the services of the respondents on 31st December, 2007, he has not been paid pension by the respondents and, therefor, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the order at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, whereby, the benefit of pension has been denied to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner bearing W.P.(S) No. 3224 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2011, wherein, direction was given to the respondents to pass speaking order, after hearing the petitioner and Annexure 3 is an order, passed by the respondents, in pursuance of the aforesaid direction in the earlier writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the salary of the present petition, sizable amount has been deducted and the pension has not been paid and, therefore, let a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to make payment of pension in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, at paragraph no.6 it has been stated that as per Rules 3, 4 and 6 of the Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987, an employee will get either contributory provident fund or pension under the Pension Scheme. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner has contributed the provident fund from his salary with effect from 12th January, 2000 and he has already received the benefit of contributory provident fund. The petitioner has already retired on 31st December, 2007 and now after retirement, the petitioner cannot claim double benefit i.e. one under contributory provident fund and another under the Pension Scheme, because as per the Rules, 1987, the petitioner is entitled for either of the benefits and not both and, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner was working with respondent nos. 2 and 3 and he retired as Tax Collector with effect from 31st December, 2007. (ii) It further appears that as per Rules 3, 4 and 6 of Bihar Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987, employees of respondent nos. 2 and 3 will be entitled to get either Contributory Provident Fund or Pension under Pension Scheme Thus, no employee is entitled for both the benefits. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner had contributed for contributory fund amount from his salary from 12th January, 2000 and in lieu of the same, he has already received the benefit under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, after his retirement in the year, 2007. (iv) Now, after retirement in the year, 2007 the petitioner has preferred a writ petition in the year, 2012 for getting another benefit of pension, which is not permissible as per the aforesaid Rules, 1987. The petitioner is entitled to either Contributory Provident Fund or the Pension. As he has not opted for pension, the petitioner is not entitled to get the pension. Petitioner has already received the benefit under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, upon his retirement. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner regarding pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued out any other point, other than the aforesaid point for grant of pension. Thus, there is no substance in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;