Rajdeo Paswan vs The State of Bihar and Others

On and from 24.3.2005 Bihar Service Code came to be amended and the superannuation age of the Government employees was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. The question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant, being an employee of the Lodging House Committee, Gaya is entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation of Government employees. Counsel for the appellant relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Yogendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others (C.W.J.C. No. 8620 of 2004 decided on 3.7.2007) in support of his contention that the Lodging House Committee is nothing but a State Government and its employees are, therefore, Government employees. Upon perusal of the order of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Yogendra Kumar Singh (supra), we find that for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Lodging House Committee has been held to be a ''State''. We are afraid, merely because instrumentality or public body is treated as a "State" for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it does not become the State Government.

Counsel for the appellant then took us through the provisions contained in the Bihar & Orissa Places of Pilgrimage Act, 1920; again to demonstrate that Lodging House Committee is a Department of the State Government. Having carefully considered those provisions, what transpires to us is that the establishment of Lodging House Committee is traceable to Section 20(2) of the Act of 1920. However, that does not make it a department of the State Government.

Nothing has been shown nor placed on record that the Commissioner, or for that matter, the Managing Committee has adopted the amendment in the Bihar Service Code with effect from 24.3.2005 whereby the retirement age of the Government employees has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Rather the material on record shows that the Managing Committee has deferred the subject for consideration in its meeting held on 3.12.2006.

In our considered view, the claim of the appellant that he is entitled to the retirement age of 60 years, as provided under the Bihar Service Code (Amended) with effect from 24.3.2005, is wholly misconceived. The Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine.