Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GULAB CHAND AGRAWAL versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Decided
29 November 2006
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 849 · 2006 INSC 928

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

p. 850, margin D

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16. l 0.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 972/2003, whereby and where under a judgment and order dated 11.9.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court passed in CWJC No. 707/2000 was affirmed the appellant herein was appointed as a clerk in Siwan Municipality. The said Municipality is a 'local authority' constituted in terms of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipalities Act, l.922.

p. 850, margin E

The State of Bihar framed rules for the Municipal employees, known as Bihar Municipal officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987. Clause 1 if Rule 4 of the· said rules reads as follow:

p. 850, margin F

"Municipal employees on roll on the date of confirmation of this rule and who had subscribed to the contributory provident fund under provident fund rules and want to be governed by these rules shall have the option to do so and such option shall be exercised in writing in the prescribed Form (Annexure-1) and submitted to their head office within 90 days from the date of framing of this rule by the State Government. If such option in writing prescribed form is not received within the period so fixed it will be deemed that they would retain the existing contributory provident fund."

pp. 850–851, margin G

Appellant retired from his service on 31.1.1992. The aforesaid rules were adopted by the respondent-Municipality in August, 2001. As Appellant did not give any option for switching over to the pension scheme under the aforesaid rules from the contributory provident fund scheme of which he was a member, the High Court dismissed his writ application.

p. 851, margin A

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the question of giving any option in terms of the Rule 4 of the Pension Rules did not arise as the same had been adopted by respondent NO. 4 - Municipality only in August, 2001.

p. 851, margin B

Although the learned counsel may be correct in his submission but fact remains that he had already retired in 1992 and as such, at this juncture, the respondent No. 4 - Municipality's giving him opportunity to opt for the said scheme does not and cannot arise. We, therefore, albeit for different reasons, uphold the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

p. 851, margin C

However, it is stated at the Bar that the entire retirement dues of the appellant has not been paid. If that be so, we are sure that the respondent No. 4 being a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, shall pay all lawful dues of the appellant at an early date.

p. 851, margin D

The <!ppeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed

p. 851, margin E