State of Bihar vs Rajmati Devi & Anr. case

State of Bihar vs Rajmati Devi & Anr. case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3900­3901 OF 2022

The State of Bihar & Ors.             ..Appellant (S)

Versus

Rajmati Devi & Anr.                        ..Respondent (S)

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment   and   order   dated   11.04.2017   passed   by   the

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in

Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.   1099/2016,   by   which,   the

Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said

appeal   preferred   by   the   State   and   has   confirmed   the

judgment   and   order   dated   02.09.2015   passed   by   the

learned Single Judge holding that respondent No. 1 being

widow of the deceased employee would be entitled for grant

1

of family pension from the date of death of her husband,

the State of Bihar has preferred the present appeals.

2. The husband of respondent No. 1 herein joined the Bihar

Research Society, an autonomous society registered under

Societies Act, as a peon. The said society was taken over

by the Government of Bihar vide Bihar Research Society

(Taking Over) Act, 2007. By resolution dated 31.08.2005,

the   State   abolished   the   Old   Pension   Rules   i.e.,   Bihar

Pension   Rules,   1950   and   replaced   the   same   with   New

Pension   Scheme   i.e.,   Bihar   Government   Servant

Contributory Pension Scheme, 2005, w.e.f. 01.09.2005. As

per the New Pension Scheme, the employees appointed

after   31.08.2005   shall   be   governed   by   the   new

contributary pension scheme under which the government

employees appointed after 31.08.2005 shall not be entitled

to the pension/family pension. The Bihar Research Society

(Taking Over) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,

2007) came into force on 02.03.2009 resulting in taking

over   of   the   Institute/Society   where   the   husband   of

respondent No. 1 was working. The husband of respondent

2

No. 1 died on 23.03.2013 while in service. The employees

of the aforesaid Society were taken into government service

vide   order   dated   25.03.2014   w.e.f.   02.03.2009.   A

corrigendum   came   to   be   issued   by   the   State   of   Bihar

amending   the   employment   order   dated   25.03.2014

substituting   the   word   “appointed”   with   the   word

“absorbed”.   Clause   6   was   inserted   by   the   corrigendum

stating that prior to date of acquisition, the service would

not be calculated as government service. That respondent

No. 1 filed the writ petition before the High Court praying

for family pension and other retiral benefits. By judgment

and   order   dated   02.09.2015,   the   learned   Single   Judge

allowed the said writ petition and directed the State to pay

the family pension to respondent No. 1 from the date of her

husband’s death i.e., 23.03.2013.  

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order  passed   by  the   learned  Single   Judge  allowing  the

family   pension,   the   State   preferred   the   Letters   Patent

Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the

impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has

3

dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has

given rise to the present appeals.

  

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

vehemently   submitted   that   pension   and   family   pension

was available to the employees of the State Government

who   were   governed   by   the   Old   Pension   Rules.   It   is

submitted that when the husband of respondent No. 1 was

absorbed   in   the   year   2014   w.e.f.   02.03.2009,   the   Old

Pension Rules were abolished and the New Contributory

Pension   Scheme   was   replaced.   It   is   submitted   that

therefore, the Old Pension Rules were not applicable to the

husband of respondent No. 1 and therefore, respondent

No. 1 shall not be entitled to the family pension under the

Old Pension Rules. 

3.1 It is submitted that the Old Pension Rules were abolished

on 01.09.2005 and thereafter, the New Pension Scheme

came   into   force,   therefore,   New   Pension   Scheme   was

applicable to all the employees of the State Government,

who were appointed/absorbed on or after 01.09.2005.

4

3.2 It is submitted that a corrigendum dated 22.06.2015 was

also issued by the Government making it abundantly clear

that the term of Government service will be calculated only

from the cut­off date i.e., 02.03.2009 and the services of

the   adjusted   employees,   prior   to   date   of   acquisition   in

Bihar   Research   Society   shall   not   be   calculated   as   a

government service. It is submitted that in that view of the

matter, the High Court has committed a grave error in

allowing   the   family   pension   applying   the   Old   Pension

Rules, 1950.

3.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the

present appeals.    

4. The   present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.

Rachitta   Rai,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of

respondent   No.   1.   It   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the

husband of respondent No. 1 was absorbed in the State

Government   service   w.e.f.   02.03.2009   by   way   of

adjustment vide Section 5 of the Act, 2007. It is submitted

5

that it was not a fresh appointment and therefore, his

services were to be treated as continuous. 

4.1 It is submitted that the husband of respondent No. 1 died

in   harness   and   while   in   service   and   therefore,   as   per

clause 7(1) to the family pension scheme, on the death of

her husband who died while in service, respondent No. 1

was entitled to the family pension and the family pension

scheme being beneficial scheme, both, the learned Single

Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court

have rightly held that respondent No. 1 is entitled to the

benefit of the family pension scheme.   

5. We  have  heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

both the parties at length. 

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the husband

of   respondent   No.   1   came   to   be   absorbed   in   the

government service in the year 2014 w.e.f. 02.03.2009. Till

02.03.2009,   he   remained   the   employee   of   the   Bihar

Research   Society,   of   which   he   was   an   employee   and

working.   The   Old   Pension   Rules,   1950   came   to   be

6

abolished and the New Contributory Pension Scheme came

to   be   introduced   w.e.f.   01.09.2005.   Under   the   New

Contributory Pension Scheme, there is no provision for

pension/family pension. As per the Scheme, all those who

are appointed after 31.08.2005 shall be governed by the

New Contributory Pension Scheme. Therefore, at the time

when the husband of respondent No. 1, who died in the

year   2013,   was   absorbed,   the   Old   Pension   Rules   were

abolished and the New Contributory Pension Scheme was

in   existence.   As   per   the   corrigendum   issued   in   the

appointment order and as per clause 6, the prior service

rendered   by   the   concerned   employee   prior   to   his

absorption shall not be treated as a government service.

Therefore, the husband of respondent No. 1 can be said to

be a government servant and in government service w.e.f.

02.03.2009 only.  Therefore, the  husband  of respondent

No.   1   was   governed   by   the   New   Contributory   Pension

Scheme   under   which   there   is   no   provision   for   the

pension/family   pension.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   has

committed a grave error in directing the appellant to pay

the family pension to respondent No. 1 applying the Old

7

Pension Rules, which were appliable prior to 31.08.2005.

The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the High

Court   at   all   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   simply

considered that on the death of the husband of respondent

No. 1, who died in harness while in service, respondent No.

1 is entitled to the family pension under family pension

scheme. However, the High Court has not at all considered

that on coming into force the New Contributory Pension

Scheme,   no   government   employee   appointed   after

31.08.2005 shall be entitled to any other benefit except

under the New Contributory Pension Scheme. In that view

of the matter, respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to the

family pension under the Old Pension Rules, which were

not appliable at the time when the husband of respondent

No. 1 came to be absorbed in the government service w.e.f.

02.03.2009. 

7. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated

above, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by

the High Court deserve(s) to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly,   the   judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the

8

learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the

High Court holding that respondent No. 1 shall be entitled

to the family pension under the Old Pension Rules are

hereby quashed and set aside. It is observed and held that

as the husband of respondent No. 1 was absorbed in the

government   service   only   w.e.f.   02.03.2009,   he   shall   be

governed   by   the   New   Pension   Scheme   i.e.,   Bihar

Government Servant Contributory Pension Scheme, 2005.

The present appeals are allowed, accordingly. No costs.      

                       

…………………………………J.

              (M. R. SHAH)

………………………………J.

    (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

May 20, 2022 

9