AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aftab Alam, J.—This writ petition, at the instance of the Secretary, Bhojpur Zila Parishad Employees Association and another employee of the Zila Parishad was filed in the year, 1992, mainly making a grievance against nonpayment of the monthly salary of the employees on time and seeking a direction for payment of their salary from March 1992 as well as for payment of their due salary on time.
However, when the case was taken up for hearing (about eight years after it was filed), Mr. I.T. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not say a word about the irregular payment of salary to the employees of the Zila Parishad. Presumably the grievance of the Petitioners on that score no longer subsists. At the time of hearing Mr. Gaur sought to make a grievance out of the denial of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Zila Parishad and submitted that Rule 9 of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Conditions of Service) Rules that stipulated non-payment of pension to the employees was bad and illegal.
The conditions of service of the employees of the Zila Parishad are governed by the Bihar Panchayat Samit and Zila Parishad (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964 framed u/s 75 of the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules is as follows:
DHARA 50 KI UPDHARA (3) KE ANUSAAR ZILA PARISHAD KE ADHIN APNE APNE PADON PAR NIKUKT ZILA BOARD KE PADADHIKARIYON YAA KARMCHARIYON KI SEWA SHARTEN WAHI BANI RAHAIN GI JO AISE NIYUKTI KE PURVA THI. YADI WEE OOKT TARIKH KE CHAAR MAHINE KI AWDHI KE BHITAR AISA WIKALP DAIN TO NIYAM 9 KE UP-BANDHON KE ADHIN RAHTE HUWE OON KI SEWA SHARTAIN WOH HOAN GI JO RAJYA SARKAR MAIN OOSI KOTI KE PADADHIKARIYON KI HAI.
From a plain reading of the rule, it is clear that the provision of this rule was made subject to Rule 9 which is as follows:
ZILA PARISHAD KE KATIPYA PADADHIKARI PENSION NAHIN PA YEN GEZILA PARISHAD DWARA NIYUKT KOE PADADHIKARI, KARMCHARI YAA SEWAK, JO OOS TARIKH KO PENSIONEE PAD DHARAN NAHI KARTA HAI JIS TARIKH KO ZILA PARISHAD PAHLI BAR PRABHAR LETA HAI, PENSION KA HAKDAAR NAHIN HO GA : "PARANTU AISA PDADHIKARI, KARMCHARI YAA SEWAK ABHIDAE BHAVISHYA NIDHI AUR SARKARI SEWAKON KE LIYE PARYUKT PNIYAMON KE ANUSAR UPDAAN KI ISUVIDHAON KA HAKDAAR HO GA.
From Rule 9 it is evident that the Employees of the Zila Parishad, though Entitled to provident fund and gratuity, are not to be paid any pension following their retirement from service.
Mr. Gaur submitted that the restriction imposed by Rule 9 was bad. He submitted that the definition of service conditions as provided under Rule 2(ii) included pension and, therefore, when Rule 5 dealt with service conditions, that must be held to include pension. The submission overlooks the fact that the provision if Rule 5 is expressely subject to Rule 9 and we are unable to follow how and why Rule 9 can be said to be bad and illegal. Mr. Gaur made a reference to Sections 47A and 50 of the Act. The provisions of he aforesaid two sections do not in any way support the contention being made on behalf of the Petitioners.
It is plain and simple that the employees of the Zila Parishad are not the employees of the State Government and there is no legal obstruction in having for them a separate set of conditions of service which in fact is provided under the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Conditions of Service) Rules, Rule 9 of these Rules provides that the employees, though entitled to provident fund and gratuity, are not to be paid any pension after retirement from service. The rule cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity either. We, therefore, see no reason to declare the rule as bad or legal or issue a direction for payment of pension to the employees of the Zila Parishad on their retirement.
We see no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.
I agree.