Rabinder Kumar Sinha vs The State of Bihar and Others

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in all these eight writ petitions and Mr. J.P. Shukla, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation''). On behalf of petitioners in all these writ petitions it has been submitted that on account of enhancement of age of retirement of all Government Servants in the State of Bihar with effect from 24.3.2005. the employees of the respondent-Corporation such as the petitioners are also entitled to enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 60 years in place of 58 years. It has been submitted that considering all the relevant facts and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lala Nand Kumar Vs. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Others and The State of Bihar and Others, , this Court has already decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the employees of the Corporation by judgment and order dated 12.3.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12886 of 2007 (Kailash Singh and Anr. vs. The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation) and C.W.J.C. No. 3671 of 2007 (Hari Narayan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others).

On behalf of respondent-Corporation Mr. Shukla has fairly submitted that the judgment of this Court dated 12.3.2008 was in respect of similarly situated employees of the Corporation and hence covers the case of the petitioners also. However, he has made a broader submission that the Corporation is not in good financial condition and therefore there may be financial difficulty in payment of salary and other emoluments to the employees of the Corporation particularly when the age of superannuation will be treated as 60 years in place of 58 years. This larger aspect of the matter relates to policy and is not a legal issue hence this Court has no option but to follow the aforesaid decision in these cases also. Sometimes enhancing age of superannuation may lessen the financial burden of the organization because the retrial benefits are not required to be paid in lump sum and on account of availability of experienced employees, new recruitment may also stand deferred for some time. Be that as it may, the issue raised by Mr. Shukla needs no decision in these cases. It is the responsibility of the Corporation to ensure that its lawful employees are paid in accordance with law. All the writ petitions are allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 12.3.2008 passed in the case of Kailash Singh and Another (supra) referred to above. The orders superannuating the writ petitioners from service at the age of 58 years, if any, shall stand quashed and as a consequence such petitioners shall be reinstated in service. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service as per enhanced age of superannuation i.e. till the age of 60 years. Those petitioners who were superannuated at the age of 58 years after the enhancement of age of superannuation but have crossed the age of 60 years shall not be reinstated and shall be only entitled to the consequential monetary benefits treating them to have continued in service till 60 years of age.