- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the part refusal of relief in his writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3170 of 2002 and thereby denial of counting of his past service rendered in two institutions; Deep Narayan Singh Regional Institute of Co -operative Management, Patna as a librarian and in Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited ( in short "SAIL"). The appellant's contention is that he served Deep Narayan Singh Regional Institute of Co - operative Management, Patna from 1965 to 1973 and thereafter he served Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited ( in short "SAIL") from 1973 to 1976 and thereafter finally he served Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur from 1976 to 2000 till he attained the age of superannuation. The Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur is now known as National Institute of Technology (in short "NIT"). The Deep Narayan Singh Regional Institute of Co -operative Management, Patna is an institute run by Co -operative Society as well as it is funded by Government of Bihar. The Bokaro Steel Plant of SAIL is funded by Central Government whereas the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur was funded by State Government and Central Government in equal share. However, after creation of State of Jharkhand, now the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur is known as National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. Appellant's further contention is that appellant became eligible for the pensionary benefit in view of the Bihar Government's Resolution dated 6th September, 1999, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure -5. By this Government resolution dated 6th September, 1999 (Annexure -5), the employees of the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur were made eligible for the "Triple Benefit Scheme" i.e. of Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund at par with the employees of the State Government. So far as appellant's entitlement to the pensionary benefit at par with the State Government employees for the period for which he served in Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur is concerned, there is no dispute. The appellant's grievance in the writ petition was in two fold; one he was entitled to the pensionary benefit by counting his service up -to the age of 60 years, which is the date of superannuation and petitioner served up -to that age in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. But the respondent allowed pensionary benefit by counting the service to the age of 58 years. However, learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 26th March, 2003 set aside the Government's decision to allow appellant's pensionary benefit for the period up -to the age of 58 years and the respondents were directed to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner by counting his service up -to the age of 60 years i.e., the age of superannuation on which date the petitioner superannuated.
(3.) APPELLANT 's second prayer was with respect to counting of service rendered by the appellant in Deep Narayan Singh Regional Institute of Co -operative Management, Patna and Bokaro Steel Plant of SAIL. The appellant's said prayer was rejected by learned Single Judge for want of sufficient pleadings as well as unavailability of materials on record. The appellant being aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26th March, 2003 preferred this L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003. The appellant's L.P.A was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide a brief order dated 10th August, 2004. The appellant then preferred a review petition being Civil Review No. 100 of 2004, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6th December, 2005. Aggrieved against the order passed in Civil Review No. 100 of 2004, the appellant preferred a S.L.P.(C) No. 21497 of 2006, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was consequently converted into Civil Appeal No. 2630 of 2009. Vide order dated 17th March, 2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the circular and instruction issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, New Delhi and other documents, found that the above documents were relevant material for the purpose of deciding the review petition and, therefore, after setting aside the order referred above, remanded the matter to this Court for deciding the review application afresh. The appellant's Review Petition No. 100 of 2004 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11th February, 2013. Hence, this L.P.A has come up for consideration before us.;