Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 5464 of 2015 Petitioner No. 1 has superannuated. Petitioner No. 2, who has been absorbed on the post of peon, by office order dated 18.2.2008 bearing Memo No. 478 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, Annexure 1/1 pursuant to the decision of Human Resources Development Department contained in Resolution No. 824 dated 30.5.2007 being the surplus employees of the Non -Formal Education Project, which was closed in 2001, has sought interim protection in the matter of grant of current salary stopped since July, 2015. The controversy in the main matter is in relation to the application of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, 2004 brought into force w.e.f. 1st December, 2004. Petitioner claims to continue in the GPF scheme to which he was an optee in his previous service under Adult Education Project and claims that on account of the absorption in the present service his appointment should not be treated anew. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pending adjudication on the main issue, in a similar matter being WP(S) No. 5323/2013 this Court by order dated 1.3.2014 have passed interim order for payment of current salary and allowing the petitioner to remain in GPF Scheme subject to out come of the main matter. He has, therefore, prayed for similar interim protection.
(2.) On the interim prayer made in the instant I.A. sufficient time has been granted to the respondents and the matter has been adjourned twice since 21.9.2015. However, counsel for the respondent -State has pleaded for more time on account of certain engagement of the respondents -authorities in the ensuing Panchayat election.
(3.) Be that as it may, petitioner No. 2 appears to be without salary and is working on the post of peon under the respondents -Commercial Taxes Department, now at Ranchi. In that view of the matter, interim prayer of the petitioner No. 2 is allowed in similar terms as those in WP(S) No. 5323/2013 dated 21.3.2014, operative portion of which is quoted hereunder: "Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Jai Prakash, appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that if the order dated 11.11.2013 is clarified to the extent regarding the manner in which the current salary of these petitioners should be paid, there would be no difficulty in making payment of the current salary of these petitioners pending adjudication of the case on merits. The main issue pending adjudication before this Court is in relation to the petitioners' claim to remain in G.P.F. Pension Scheme instead of switching over the New -Pension (C.P. F.) Scheme. In such circumstances, it was observed on earlier date that their current salary be paid to them if they are discharging their duties. Having regard to the submission made today by the rival parties, it is observed that the arrangement under which their salary were being paid earlier by making deductions towards the G.P.F. account would be continued to be made during the pendency of the writ petition and their salary be paid in the same manner if they have been discharging their duties. However, the same would be subject to the outcome of the instant writ petition. If the petitioners fail in the writ petition, they would be required to deposit their shares of C.P. F. deductions in lump sum along with interest, as may be statutorily required or under the terms of the said scheme. The order dated 11.11.2013 is clarified to the extent indicated hereinabove.";