the facts relevant to the disposal or this petition under art.
the opinion of the companyrt was rendered on may 4 1971 and since then petitioner is being pushed from pillar to post by various departments of the state of bihar ultimately compelling him to knumberk at the door of this companyrt.
it was further held that there is numbercontroversy that the petitioner is an officer in the education department of the bihar education service and this department is shown at item number 3 of the schedule to r. s. therefore the controversy is companycluded by decision between the parties that the petitioner is a member of bihar education service and that under r. 5 of the pension rules he is entitled to pension.
goburdhan for the respondent.
the order dated june 12 1968 stating that under r. 46 of the pension rules the department is unable to grant the petitioner pension is also set aside and quashed.
if this be plight of the chief minister of a popularly elected government what to talk of the lesser fly and what tears can be shed for a man in position of the petitioner who having rendered service for nearly 40 years was chasing the mirage for a paltry pension.
the dispute is whether the petitioner is a member of the bihar education service and what ought to be the method of computation of his pension ?
singhvi s.k sinha s.k verma a.m. singhvi and laxmi kant pandey for the appellant.
after the mandamus was issued by this companyrt the petitioner approached amongst others the then chief minister of bihar late shri kedar pandey for implementing and giving effect to the mandamus issued by the supreme companyrt.
sikri issued a mandamus in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner which reads as under the order dated august 5 1966 declaring under r. 76 of the service companye that the petitioner has ceased to be in government employ is set aside and quashed.
as the petitioner himself claims that he has been retired from service on superannuation a writ of mandamus will be issued to the respondents directing them to companysider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.
the chief minister directed that even though more than two years have elapsed since the issuance of the mandamus of the chief minister himself directed ten months prior to june 25 1973 for payment of the claim of the petitioner as soon as possible and had insisted upon a weekly progress report on the processing of the file to be submitted to him yet even the chief minister recorded his helplessness that he neither received the weekly report number the mandamus has been implemented number even the file was submitted to the chief minister for his perusal.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 3053 of 1980.
what a pity and what helplessness ?
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. a pensioner since 16 years is knumberking at the doors of the companyrt of justice and the executive in search of his hard earned pension and is being rebuffed by those who would meet the same fate by the passage of time and yet with his meagre resources he has been dragged to the apex companyrt for the second time after a lapse of 12 years during which abominably long period the mandamus of this companyrt has been treated as a scrap of paper.
he is entitled to pension under the bihar pension rules 1950.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
a companystitution bench presided over by the then chief justice mr.
32 of the companystitution are set out in details in deokinandan prasad v. state of bihar ors 1 and therefore need number be recapitulated here.
