1. Surendra Prasad Singh 2. Prem Kumar Sinha ---------- … … v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Secretary, Personnel
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 7183 of 2005 1. Surendra Prasad Singh 2. Prem Kumar Sinha ---------- … … … Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Secretary, Cooperative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi … … … Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-III 17/15.04.2024 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ---------- petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents. PRAYERS OF THE PETITIONER 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to give them service inclusive of monetary and service benefits from the date of their employment as Paid Manager in terms of appointment order issued under Memo No. 5687, dated 28.08.2003, taking into consideration the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 20.08.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 1996 affirming the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 within a specified period. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Sans details, the facts in a nutshell is that petitioners were appointed as Paid Managers in PACS in different Blocks. Since the Paid Managers were facing financial difficulties, they moved before the Hon’ble Panta High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 for their absorption in government service,
Decision
which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to absorb them in government service. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred Civil Appeal 1 No. 7357 of 1996 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.08.1998 upholding the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court directing the State of Bihar to conduct examination for absorption of Paid Managers taking into account their age, experience and service rendered to the Cooperative Societies. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were absorbed in the government service after following the procedures laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. After absorption, the petitioners continued to discharge their duties in the respective government departments. Since the past services of the petitioners were not counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits rather their pecuniary benefits were considered from the date of absorption, petitioners have been constrained to knock door of this Court. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabhandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 218 has directed the respondents – State to count the earlier service of the petitioners for the purpose of seniority and pension, but when the said order was not complied with, the petitioners therein preferred Contempt Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being Contempt Civil No. 27 of 2003, which was disposed of in view of the affidavit filed by the State of Bihar on 24.03.2003, stating that the order passed by the Hon’ble Court has been complied with. Learned counsel further argues that since case of the petitioners is similar to those in which orders were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they are also entitled for the same and similar benefits of seniority and for the purposes of computing pension and other consequential benefits. Though the order was complied in the State of Bihar but the State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 07.03.2014 decided to remain stable on its earlier stand stating that since the past services rendered by the petitioners as Paid/Cooperative Managers are not government services, their services cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and promotion etc.. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners deserve the same and similar benefits as have been extended to the 2 RC employees serving in the State of Bihar. It has further been argued that on the date of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and its by the State of Bihar, it was the unified State of Bihar and Jharkhand was not carved out by that time. After bifurcation of the State, a different stand cannot be taken by the State of Jharkhand as the order was binding upon the government as the same was passed before bifurcation of the State. The State of Jharkhand cannot resile from the stand taken by the State of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned orders are hit by principles of promissory estoppel since the order of Hon’ble Apex Court has been passed on a consentaneous order. Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondents by appointing the petitioners from the date of issuance of appointment letter is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that a joint representation was given by the petitioners on 14.02.2005 for redressal of their grievances but no step has been taken till date. Learned counsel further argues that action of the respondents in debarring the petitioners from the benefits of past service rendered by them as well as benefits of seniority and pension cannot be upheld when tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that legally fundamental right of the petitioners flows from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court since in pursuance to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioners who have qualified the departmental examination, have been absorbed with the bond hope of getting post retiral benefits. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS 5. 6. Learned counsel representing State submits that the Government of Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Jharkhand, Department of Cooperative has come out with a considered stand that the past services of the Paid Cooperative Managers cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits and promotion. It has been argued that the Paid Cooperative Managers are neither the employees of the State Government nor employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank rather they are the employees of the District Cadre Cooperative Societies. In view of provisions of Section 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the benefits of 3 RC pension can only be extended to the government servant. So, the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand is fully justified. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. Be that as it may, having gone through submissions of the parties, it can safely be inferred that in view of provisions of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the petitioners do not fulfil the requisite conditions and criteria. At this stage, it would be proper to examine Rule 203 of the Pension Rules. The State is very much empowered to exercise its discretionary powers under Rule 203 of the Pension Rules. The petitioners before approaching this Court, had appeared in the recruitment examination/ tests in view of direction passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 and were also declared successful and thereupon, they were absorbed in the government services. Since petitioners were already working and it is only after clearing the limited examination, they were to be absorbed, their earlier services rendered before absorption, cannot be wiped out denying their past services for computation of pension. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Rani Dutta, Aaya/ Attendant & Ors. Vs. State Industrial Court, Indore & Ors. reported in (1985) 3 SCC 148, the Court held that after the absorption of the employees in Bhilai Steel Plant, their services shall be counted since the commencement of their employment and shall be treated to be continuous. It is nowhere in dispute that the State of Bihar has already implemented orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same is also binding on the State of Jharkhand as well and as such, it is not open for the State of Jharkhand to take a different stand. The State is bound to protect the human rights as well as the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since petitioners have already represented and no orders have been passed, the State of Jharkhand is directed to take an informed decision in view of the aforementioned observations as well as the order passed by the 8. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court affirming the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court. 10. Let the respondent – State take a fresh decision for treating past services of the petitioners to be counted for computation of pensionary and 4 RC other consequential benefits, within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that if decision is taken in favour of the petitioners, the benefits accrued to them shall be extended within a further period of eight weeks. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of. 11. 12. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 5 RC