REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 505-531 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 27922-27948 OF 2017)

PARMESHWAR NANDA ETC. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF  SECRETARY & ORS. ETC. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 532-542 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 32135-32145 OF 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 852 OF 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4380 OF 2019)

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 545-546 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 4698-4699 OF 2019)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 505-531 of 2020

Civil Appeal Nos. 532-542 of 2020

Civil Appeal Nos. 543 of 2020

1

A N D

Civil Appeal Nos. 545-546 of 2020

1. The present appeals are directed against an order passed by the

Full Bench of High Court of Jharkhand on 16th June, 2017 wherein it

has been held that the services rendered by the appellants under

the Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project1 cannot be

counted  under  a  Government  scheme  for  the  purpose  of

pensionary  benefits  after  the  appellants  were  appointed  by  the

State.   

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants were appointed under the

Project,  co-sponsored by  the Central  Government  and the State

Government, in the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar between the

period 1978 to 1990.  Some of the appellants were appointed as

Adult  Education  Supervisors  whereas  other  appellants  were

appointed in the ministerial cadre such as Stenographer, Clerk cum

Accountant,  Clerk  cum  Typist,  Peon  as  well  as  Drivers.   The

appellants were working under the Project during the bifurcation of

the State and their services fell in the successor State of Jharkhand

which was formed on 15th November, 2000.  The Government of

India vide policy decision dated 1st April, 2001 closed the Project.

The  Government  of  Jharkhand,  consequent  to  the  bifurcation  of

State of  Bihar,  declared the employees to  be surplus  w.e.f.  16th

May, 2001.

1  for short, ‘Project’

2

3. The Government of Jharkhand issued a notification dated 30th May,

2007 for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project in the

Departments  of  Food,  Public  Distribution  and  Consumer  Affairs,

Finance,  Social  Welfare,  Women  and  Child  Development,  Urban

Development etc. on different posts, in their respective prescribed

scales of pay.  A perusal of the said notification shows that there

were 756 employees who were declared as surplus and were to be

absorbed  by  the  State.   It  appears  that  most  of  the  surplus

employees were absorbed in different scales of pay vide letter of

appointments starting from 24th July, 2007 except those who had

attained  the  age  of  superannuation  or  had  died  prior  to  such

absorption.

4. As per Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification dated 30th May, 2007,

the  surplus  employees  absorbed  were  to  be  treated  as  new

appointments  and  the  services  rendered  by  them prior  to  their

declaration as surplus i.e.  prior to 15th May, 2001, would not be

counted  for  the  purpose  of  their  seniority  and  pay  protection.

Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification read as under:

“11.   The  adjustment  of  surplus  personnels  will  be considered new appointment and being surplus on the basis  of  prior  service,  they  will  not  be  benefitted  of seniority.

12.  These surplus personnels will not be benefitted by pay protection.”

5. 59 writ petitions came to be filed claiming pensionary benefits and

seniority before the High Court.  The matter was placed before the

3

Full Bench in view of the divergence of opinions of the two Division

Benches of the Jharkhand High Court in  State of Jharkhand &

Ors. v. Bhubneshwar Mahto2 and State of Jharkhand & Ors. v.

Bimal Kumar Sinha3.

6. LPA No. 515 of 2004 was preferred by the State against the order of

the learned Single Bench passed on 21st November, 2003.  The writ

petitioner was directed to be paid salary for the period 16th May,

2001 to  31st July,  2001 i.e.  the date of  his  retirement.  The writ

petitioner was ordered to be treated as a regular employee of the

State,  having  been  appointed  on  10th December,  1968,  much

before the Project started in the year 1978.  LPA No. 188 of 2004

was preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single

Bench.  In the appeal, it was held that the writ petitioner therein

was  appointed  under  the  Project  which  was  abolished  on  the

specific  condition  that  past  service  rendered by  him will  not  be

taken into account.  Such writ petitions were categorized into three

groups by the Full  Bench. The first group of petitions were from

those employees who had retired after being declared surplus w.e.f.

16th May,  2001 but  before  they  were  absorbed  pursuant  to  the

notification dated 30th May, 2007.  In this category, some of the

writ petitioners were legal heirs of those employees who had died

during  this  period  before  being  absorbed.  The  second  group  of

petitions were from those employees who were declared surplus

but  were  absorbed  by  the  Government  of  Jharkhand  vide

2  LPA No. 515 of 2004 3  LPA No. 188 of 2004

4

notification dated 30th May, 2007 and had retired thereafter.  The

third  group  of  petitions  were  from  those  employees  who  were

working  on  the  date  of  filing  of  the  writ  petitions,  after  being

absorbed by the Government of Jharkhand vide the aforementioned

notification.   The  employees  in  writ  petitions  comprising  of

Categories  I  and  II  claim  pensionary  benefits  whereas  the  writ

petitions  filed  in  Category  III  claim  seniority  by  taking  into

consideration  their  past  services  rendered  under  the  Project

resulting  into  payment  of  pension  after  attaining  the  age  of

superannuation.

7. The common challenge in all the writ petitions were to clauses 11

and  12,  as  reproduced  above.   It  was  the  stand  of  the  writ

petitioners  that  they are  being  treated  as  fresh appointees  and

their  past  service  has  not  been  counted  for  the  purposes  of

seniority or fixation of their initial salary.

8. The  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  referred  to  Jharkhand

Pension  Rules  to  hold  that  the  following  three  conditions  are

required to be satisfied before the service can be treated to be

pensionable service-   

(i) Service must be under Government. (ii) Employment must be substantive and permanent. (iii) Service must be paid by Government.

9. Rule  59  provides  that  the  State  Government  can  declare  any

specific  kind  of  service  rendered  in  a  non-gazetted  capacity  to

qualify for pension even though either or both of conditions (1) and

5

(2) are not fulfilled.  The High Court held that no declaration of the

State  Government  in  general  terms  has  been  made  nor  any

direction  in  individual  cases  issued  in  favour  of  any  such

petitioners.

10. Before this  Court,  learned counsel  for  the appellants  referred to

Circular issued by the State Government under Rule 59 of Bihar

Pension  Rules,  1950  which  would  be  applicable  in  the  State  of

Jharkhand after its bifurcation in terms of State Reorganization Act.

The Circular dated 12th August 1969 reads thus:

“Regarding: - Declaration of a temporary service of a Government Servant who is not confirmed as pensionable.

Under  the  existing  pension  rules,  a  temporary Government servant if not confirmed in any point, is not entitled  to  pension  unless  his  services  are  declared pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

2.  There are a large number of temporary Government servants employed under different Schemes which are in existence for the last 15-20 years and it will  cause hardship to them if they are not allowed pension after their retirement.

3.   The State  Government  after  careful  consideration have,  therefore,  been  pleased  to  decide  that  if  the service  of  the  temporary  or  officiating  government servant who is not confirmed in any post is continuous and  is  more  than  15  years,  it  will  be  considered  as pensionable under rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

4. These  orders  will  be  applicable  to  government servants retiring on or after 12 August, 1969.”

11. The argument is that the issue relating to arrears of salary for the

period  16th May,  2001  till  the  date  of  the  absorption  of  the

6

employees  under  notification  dated  30th May,  2007  stands

concluded by an order passed by this Court in State of Jharkhand

& Ors. v. Asgar Ali & Ors.4, therefore, the appellants are entitled

to consequential benefits of pension.

12. On  the  other  hand,  the  argument  of  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents is  that the said Circular was not referred to by the

appellants before the High Court and rightly so, as such Circular is

not  applicable  to  the  employees  engaged  under  Central

Government sponsored project.  Still further, it is the temporary or

officiating  service  of  a  Government  servant  which  is  to  be

considered as pensionable under Rule 59 of the Rules.  Since the

employees engaged under the Project were not discharging duties

as temporary or officiating Government servants, therefore, such

Circular will not be applicable to them.  It is, thus, argued that the

view  of  the  Full  Bench  of  the  Jharkhand  High  Court  does  not

warrant any interference in the present appeals.

13. Before  we  consider  the  respective  arguments  of  the  learned

counsel  for  the  parties,  some  of  the  statutory  provisions  of

Jharkhand Pension Rules are required to be reproduced:

“Rule  31:-  Permanent  post  means  a  post  carrying  a definite  rate  of  pay  and  sanctioned  without  limit  of time.

Rule  38:-  Substantive pay means the pay other  than special pay, personal pay or emoluments classed as pay by  the  Provincial  government  under  rule  26(a)(iii)  to which a government servant is entitled on account of a

4  Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC Nos. 10361-10364 of 2014 decided on 18th July,  2014.

7

post to which he has been appointed substantively or by reasons of his substantive position in a cadre.

Rule  40:-  Temporary  post  means  a  post  carrying  a definite rate of pay and sanctioned for a limited time.

CHAPTER III GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO GRANT OF PENSION

SECTION-1-GENERAL

Rule 58:- The service of Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First-The service must be under Government. Second-The  employment  must  be  substantive  and permanent. Third-The service must be paid by Government.

Rule 59:- The Provincial Government may, however, in the case of service paid from general revenues, even though either or both of conditions (1) and (2) are not fulfilled- (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension.   (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as it  may  think  fit  to  impose  in  each  case,  direct  that service rendered by a Government servant shall count for pension.

Rule 60:- The service of a Government servant does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined  by  the  Government.   The  following  are examples  of  Government  servants  exclude  from pension by this rule;

(1) Employees of a municipality, (2) Employees of grant-in-aid schools and institutions. (3)  Service on an establishment paid from the house hold  allowance  of  the  Governor  or  from his  contract establishment allowance.

Rule  61:-  Service  does  not  qualify  unless  the Government  servant  holds  substantively  a  post  on  a permanent establishment.

Rule  74:-  Services  which  satisfied  the  conditions

8

prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3) qualifies, or does not  qualify,  according  to  the  source  from which  it  is paid; with reference to this rule, service is classified as follows:-

(a) Paid from the general revenues. (b) Paid from local funds. (c) Paid from funds in respect to which the Government hold the position of trustee. (d) Paid by fees levied by law, or under the authority of the Govt. or by commission. (e)  Paid  by  the  grant,  in  accordance  with  law  and custom, of a tenure in land, or of a source of income, or right to collect money.

Rule  103:-  An  interruption  in  the  service  of  a Government  servant  entails  forfeiture  of  his  past service, except in the following case:- (a) Authorised leave of absence. (b) Unauthorized absence in continuation of authorized leave of absence so long as the post of the absentee is not substantively filled; if his post is substantively filled, the past service of the absentee is forfeited. (c)  Suspension,  where  it  is  immediately  followed  by reinstatement  whether  to  the  same  or  to  a  different post,  or  where  the  Government  servant  dies  or  is permitted to retire or is retired while under suspension. (d) Abolition of the post or loss of appointment owing to reduction of establishment. (e)  Transfer  or  non-qualifying  service  in  an establishment under Government Control.  The transfer must be made by a competent authority; a Government servant  who  voluntarily  resigns  qualifying  service cannot claim the benefit of this exception.  Transfer to a grant-in-aid school entails forfeiture. (f)  Time occupied in transit  from one appointment to another  provided  that  the  Government  servant  is transferred under the orders of competent authority, or, if  he is  a  non-gazetted Government servant  with  the consent of the head of his old office.”

14. Before this Court, 3 writ petitioners are in appeal falling in category

I, 18 falling in category II and 6 falling in category III.  

15. In the order under appeal, the claim of the employees for pension

9

was declined for the reason that no declaration within the meaning

of Rule 59(1) in general terms has been made nor any direction in

individual cases issued in their favour. The High Court relied upon

judgment of this Court reported as Dhyan Singh & Ors. v. State

of Haryana & Ors.5.  The High Court also held that judgment of

Single  Bench  of  Patna  High  Court  in  Baliram Singh & Ors.  v.

State of Bihar & Ors.6 is per incuriam.  The High Court concluded

as under:

“The foregoing discussion therefore makes it clear that past  services  of  these  petitioners/employees  were under the centrally sponsored scheme known as Adult Education/Non-formal Education/Mass Education Project which  was  abolished  w.e.f.  1.4.2001  by  the  Central Government and consequently w.e.f. 15.5.2001 by the Government  of  Jharkhand.   Appointment  of  these petitioners/employees  under  such  a  scheme/project therefore,  cannot  be  treated  as  under  regular establishment of the Government on a permanent and substantive post.  Moreover, their pay and allowances were borne by the grant-in-aid released by the Central Government from time to time.  That is the reason why their services were treated as surplus once the Central Government  closed  the  scheme  w.e.f.  1.4.2001. Petitioners  have  failed  to  controvert  the  aforesaid position on facts.”

16. The  judgment  in  Baliram Singh  has  attained  finality  with  the

judgment  of  this  Court  reported  as  State  of  Bihar  &  Ors.  v.

Baliram Singh & Ors.7.  In the aforesaid case, the policy decision

of  absorbing  the  writ  petitioners  appointed  under  the  Project

contained  a  clause  that  the  candidates  will  be  treated  as  fresh

appointments and that the earlier services rendered by them shall

5  (2002) 10 SCC 656 6  2016 SCC OnLine Pat 9958 7  (2018) 18 SCC 46

10

be calculated for  their  pension.   The writ  petitioners  before  the

Patna  High  Court  claimed  back  wages  from  the  date  of  their

termination till the date they were absorbed.  This Court declined

the claim of back wages.  The Court held as under:

“18.    In  the present case,  however,  the respondents have  neither  challenged  the  termination  order  after closure of the Non-Formal Education Scheme with effect from 1-4-2001  nor  the  policy  dated  20-5-2005 under which they  have  been appointed or  the appointment letter  dated  16-3-2007.  Even  the  appointment  letter dated  16-3-2007  unambiguously  predicates  that  the appointment  was  a  fresh  appointment  and  the  past services  would  be  reckoned  only  for  the  purpose  of grant  of  pension and nothing more.  Indisputably,  the respondents acted upon such terms and conditions of appointment without any demurrer. They chose to file the subject writ petition only in the year 2013, when the cause of action first arose on 1-4-2001, then on 20-5- 2005  and  once  again,  on  16-3-2007.  Unless  the respondents are to be reinstated in their previous post (held prior to 1-4-2001), the question of awarding back wages would not arise at all. The relief of back wages is and can be linked only to the order of reinstatement. It cannot  be  awarded  in  isolation  or,  for  that  matter, during  the  period  when the  respondents  were  not  in employment at all.”

17. The case of  Dhyan Singh was in respect of appointments under

the Project in the State of Haryana.  The services of the employees

were  discharged  upon  abolishing  of  the  aforementioned  Project.

The employees invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court claiming

fixation of their salary by taking past service and for pension.  This

Court declined such claim and held as under:

“…..The continuance/engagement of the appellants under the specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment  under  any  establishment  of  the Government.  Such  schemes  are  taken  up  for certain contingencies when money for the same is

11

provided either  by the Central  Government or  at times  by  some  foreign  countries.  But  the employment under such scheme not being a part of the formal cadre of the State Government, it is difficult  to  hold  that  the  period  for  which  an employee rendered service under such scheme can be counted either for the purposes of deciding their pensionary  benefits  or  even  for  fixing  of  their salary in the scale of pay once they are regularly absorbed.”

18. In the present case, Clause 11 of the notification dated 30th May,

2007  issued  by  Government  of  Jharkhand  is  to  the  effect  that

absorption  of  the  surplus  personnel  will  be  considered  as  new

appointments and they will not be granted benefit of seniority on

the   basis   of their past service.  Neither will   such past service

entitle  them  to  such  pay  protection.   One  of  the  appointment

letters appointing 65 candidates as Project Officers was issued on

20th December,  2007.   Such  appointment  letter  had  following

clauses which read as under:

“4.  Adjusted employees shall be covered under the old Pension  Scheme.   Their  service  period  prior  to retrenchment  shall  be  counted  for  the  purpose  of pension.  Period of retrenchment shall not be counted for the purpose of pension.

5.  Adjustment of above surplus Project Officers shall be considered  as  fresh  appointment  and  benefit  of seniority  on  the  basis  their  service  rendered  prior  to becoming surplus shall not be admissible to them.”

The appointment letters to the other employees is on similar lines.

19. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the

policy decision of the State, vide notification dated 30th May, 2007

12

only denies them the benefit of seniority or pay protection but not

of their past service being counted towards pensionary benefits.  It

is  contended  that  in  terms  of  Rule  59  of  the  Rules,  the  State

Government  has  declared  that  the  services  rendered  by  a

temporary Government servant employed under different schemes

would be entitled to pension after the completion of 15 years of

service.   

20. The entire case is based upon Rule 59 of the Rules and the Circular

dated 12th August, 1969 of the erstwhile State of Bihar.  We do not

find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for

the  appellants.   Rule  59  of  the  Rules  empowers  the  State

Government to declare any specified kind of service rendered by

one in a non-gazetted service to qualify for pension, provided, that

the salary is paid from the general revenue.  Rule 58 of the Rules

contemplates the conditions that are required to be satisfied for

services to be pensionable. Herein, as it has been reiterated before,

first condition is that the service must be under the Government;

second, that it must be substantive and permanent; and third, that

it must be paid by the Government.   

21. The appellants were appointed under a specific Scheme i.e.  the

Project.  Such project was not a permanent establishment of the

Government as it was meant for a specific purpose funded by the

Central Government for a specified period.  The appointment of the

appellants under the Project is not a part of any cadre of the State

13

Government.   Therefore,  the  first  condition  of  Rule  58  that  the

service  rendered  must  be  under  the  State  Government  is  not

satisfied  by  the  appellants  having  been  appointed  under  the

Project.  The  second  condition  that  employment  must  be

substantive and permanent is again not satisfied by the appellants

as  the employment  of  the appellants  was under the Project.   A

permanent post  in  terms of  Rule 31 of  the Rules means a post

carrying a definite rate of pay and that is sanctioned without a time

limit.  The appointment of the appellants under the project was not

in a pay scale nor was it sanctioned without a time limit.  Further,

substantive pay is defined in Rule 38 of the Rules as a person who

is appointed in a cadre.  At best, the appellants satisfied only the

third condition i.e. that they were paid by the Government.

22. If the first and second conditions mentioned in Rule 58 of the Rules

are not satisfied, the State Government can declare any specified

kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity to qualify for

pension.   The  Circular  dated  12th August,  1969  deals  with

pensionary  benefits  to  a  temporary  Government  servant.   The

appellants were never appointed by the Government either on a

temporary or on permanent basis.  The appellants were engaged

under the Project i.e. a scheme, therefore, the benefit of such a

Circular cannot be claimed by the appellants.  Still further, sub-rule

(1)  of  Rule  59 of  the Rules  empowers  the  State  to  declare  any

specific kind of service to qualify for pension.  The notification for

absorption circulated on 30th May, 2007 and the subsequent letter

14

of  appointments  do  not  contain  any  condition  that  the  services

rendered  by  the  appellants  under  the  Project  shall  qualify  for

pension.   The  policy  decision  contemplates  that  it  is  a  fresh

appointment and no benefit either of  seniority or pay protection

shall be given.  The appellants have not disputed such condition of

appointment  having  been  appointed  under  such  policy  decision

vide the notification dated 30th May, 2007.  The Circular has not

granted  pensionary  benefits.  In  the  absence  of  any  specific

condition  in  the  Circular  to  grant  pensionary  benefits,  it  is  not

possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to the

erstwhile  employees  of  the  Project.   The appellants  cannot  turn

around to say that the services rendered by them under the Project

shall be counted for pension.  The Circular dated 12th August, 1969

is not even remotely applicable to the employees appointed under

the Project as the very nature of the appointment was for a specific

purpose and not for an unlimited period of time.   

23. The case of Baliram Singh arises out of the policy of the State of

Bihar wherein the past service has been specifically ordered to be

considered for pension.  Since in the State of Jharkhand, the policy

decision is to treat them as fresh appointments without any benefit

of seniority and pay protection, therefore, to count the period when

the appellants were working under a Project as pensionable service

is beyond comprehension.  The appellants have been appointed as

fresh candidates and, therefore, their period of service for pension

has to be calculated from the date of their regular appointment and

15

therefore they cannot get any benefit of past service rendered by

them.

24. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  have  referred  to  an  order

passed by this Court in Asgar Ali & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

& Ors.8 wherein the direction of  the High Court for payment of

arrears  was  not  interfered  with.   It  is  contended that  since  the

appellants  have  been  paid  salary  for  the  period  prior  to  their

regular appointment, the appellants would be entitled to pension

as well.   

25. The  Single  Bench  of  the  Jharkhand  High  Court  in  a  judgment

reported as  Asgar Ali dealt with a prayer for absorption and for

payment of arrears of salary from 16th May, 2001, i.e.  when the

employees were rendered as  surplus,  till  January,  2008,  i.e.  the

date  of  their  absorption,  in  Writ  Petition  No.729  of  2004.   The

learned Single Bench vide order dated 4th January, 2010, directed

the state for the payment of salary for the reason that the services

of the employees under the Project were not retrenched, therefore,

the employees were entitled to their salary. In such petition the

employees had made no claim for counting of past services for the

purposes  of  pensionary  benefits.  As  against  such  order  of  the

learned Single Judge, the state sought LPA No.533 of 2012 which

was dismissed vide order dated 1st October, 2013. Thereafter the

State sought  a Special  Leave Petition which was also dismissed

with a direction to make phased payments of salary to the writ

8  2010 SCC OnLine Jhar 8

16

petitioners/employees.  Again,  no  claim  for  counting  of  past

services for the purposes of pension was made or allowed by the

Court.  It  was merely  a  monetary benefit  which  was  granted on

account of no formal order of retrenchment being passed against

the employees employed under the Project.  

26. Since the appellants  were absorbed as fresh appointees without

pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will

not  be  entitled  to  count  their  past  service  rendered  under  the

Project for the purpose of pension.  We, thus, do not find any error

in  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  which  may  warrant

interference in the present appeals.  Accordingly, the appeals are

dismissed.   

Civil Appeal No. 544 of 2020

27. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by Division

Bench of the High Court of Patna on 20th June, 2018 whereby LPA

No.189 of 2018 filed by the State was dismissed relying upon an

order passed by the Single Bench in CWJC No. 20780 of 2010 and

CWJC No. 20801 of 2010 on 19th April,  2011 wherein referring to

Rule  103  of  Bihar  Pension  Rules,  1950,  it  was  held  that  an

interruption in service on account of the abolition of a post shall not

entail forfeiture of the past service of a Government servant, i.e.

the intervening period can be counted for pensionary benefits. In

view of the said fact, the State was directed to consider the writ

petitioners as continuing in service between 1992 and 1998 solely

17

for  the  purpose  of  granting  personal  monetary  benefits.  The

petitioners were not to be entitled to payment of  salary for  the

period in any manner and neither claim any seniority over other

Government servants.

28. After the aforesaid judgments,  Baliram Singh  along with others

filed CWJC No. 22208 of 20139 to claim back wages for the period

from 1st October, 2001 to 3rd July, 2007.  The learned Single Bench

allowed the writ petition on 22nd August, 2016.  Thereafter, LPA No.

2307 of 2016 was dismissed on 15th January, 2018.  The said orders

were set aside by this  Court in  Baliram Singh.   Therefore,  the

reliance of the High Court on an order passed at earlier stage on

Baliram Singh no longer holds good.  It may be noticed that in the

State  of  Bihar,  past  services  rendered  by  employees  under  the

Project were taken into consideration for pensionary benefits.  In

view of the said fact, the present appeal is disposed of in the same

terms as in Baliram Singh.

     .............................................J.

L. NAGESWARA RAO

.............................................J.    (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 07, 2020.

9  2016 SCC OnLine Patna 9958 decided on 22nd August, 2016.

18