- (1.) LAKSHMI Nath Sahu, respondent No. 1 was employed as Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Institute '), wherefrom on completing 60 years ' of his age, he was to superannuate from service on 29.2.1996.
(2.) WHILE continuing on deputation in the Bihar State University Service Commission, his lien in the Institute was lastly extended upto 28.2.1996 and on the next date, i.e. on 29.2.1996 he superannuated from services of the Institute. The Principal of the Institute in his order dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure 6) treated him to have retired from the services of the Institute on 20.5.1994 and thereby refused to calculate his retirement benefits treating him to have retired on 29.2.1996. He challenged the aforesaid decision of the Principal in this Court, vide W.P. (S) No. 3351 of 2001, for a direction to the Principal to fix his retirement benefits treating him to have retired on 29.2.1996 and pay him the consequential benefits in the revised scale of pay. The writ petitioner joined as member of the said Commission on 21.5.1994. He attended the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years ' of age on 29.2.1996 in the Institute. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the writ petitioner did not join his post in the Institute on or before 29.2.1996 in terms of Rule 275 of the Bihar Service Code, he was rightly held to have superannuated from the services of the Institute, for the purposes of calculating his retiral benefits, on 20th May, 1994. We do not find any substance in the submission Rule 275 was applicable where an employee on reversion from foreign service instead of joining his post in the parent department went on leave, then it was for the department to decide as to from which date his reversion from foreign service would be effected. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in observing that the Principal of the Institute was not justified in dating back the date of superannuation of the writ petitioner to May, 1994 itself on the ground that he did not join services of the Institute on 29.2.1996, on which date, the date of lien expired and he also superannuated. We, therefore, confirm the direction of the learned Single Judge, whereby direction was given to finalise the retiral benefits and other dues of the writ petitioner, treating his date of superannuation as 29.2.1996 and pay the arrears. In the result, this appeal is dismissed having no merit.;