Review petition seeking benefit of a later Full Bench ruling extending superannuation age to 60 for BELTRON employees. The court held a subsequent decision is no ground to review the earlier LPA judgment; consequential benefits other than back-wages may be sought from authorities.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.113 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1513 of 2012
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar S/o Late Ambika Prasad Singh Permanent Address VillagePyarepur, Post Office- Pyarepur, Police Station- Sarmera, District- Nalanda and Retired Working As Assembly Operator, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bailey Road, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 17-04-2023
Heard Mr. Avinash Kumar learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar for the State.
The review petitioner had approached the learned Single Judge for directing the Beltron to give two more years of service to the petitioner, who was made to
Patna High Court C. REV. No.113 of 2021 dt.17-04-2023 2/4
superannuate at the age of 58 years. Later the corporation had taken a decision to extend the age of superannuation to 60 years.
The claim of the petitioner was rejected, which order was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1513 of 2012 vide judgment dated 23.07.2015. Shortly thereafter, a Full Bench judgment came in the case of Ms. Shivani Choudhary in a batch of LPAs, the lead case being LPA No. 1294 of 2012 in which it was held that the resolution of 41st Meeting of the Corporation dated 27.10.1987 would be a legislation by reference since no rule of Corporation has come into existence till date.
Hence there is no question of treating entire legislation by incorporation which needs transplantation of certain provisions from the previous enactments to the subsequent enactment and if there is no rule, then there is nothing to regulate the service condition of the employees of the Corporation.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.113 of 2021 dt.17-04-2023 3/4
It was thus held that “all such employees who stood compulsorily superannuated before attaining the age
of 60 years would be entitled for consequential benefits provided they are in a position to show that they were not gainfully employed elsewhere”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit which should have accrued to him by virtue of the Full Bench judgment has been denied.
However, during the course of argument, he submitted that after his superannuation at the age of 58 years, he worked on a contractual assignment with the Beltron for about a year for which he was paid.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner approached the authorities for being given the consequential benefits for the Corporation having taken a decision of extending the age of service till 60 years to all its employees. The consequential benefits can never be to the extent of payment of back-wages on the principle that nobody ought to be paid if he has not worked.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.113 of 2021 dt.17-04-2023 4/4
However, benefits which are different from back-
wages could be admissible to the petitioner in case it was
claimed by him in consonance with the riders given in the Full Bench judgment referred to above.
In any view of the matter, there is no reason for
us to review the judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1513 of 2012 for the sole reason that any subsequent decision does not entitle the petitioner to have the order against him reviewed.
There is no merit in this application.
The petition stands disposed off giving the liberty
to the petitioner to approach the authorities for the needful, if so advised.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Harish Kumar, J)
krishna/shivank
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 21.04.2023 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent Full Bench judgment entitles the petitioner to review of the Division Bench judgment affirming his superannuation at 58 years.
What consequential benefits the petitioner may claim under the Full Bench judgment despite having been gainfully engaged on contract after superannuation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ms. Shivani ChoudharyRelied on¶22
LPA No. 1294 of 2012
Jitendra Kumar
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary
The Principal Secretary, Department of Information Technology
The Principal Secretary Finance, Government of Bihar
The Deputy Secretary, Department of Information Technology
Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (Manager and Managing Director)
Ashutosh Kumar
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
