Uday Kant Jha … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Deptt., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 48 of 2013 --- Uday Kant Jha … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Deptt., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2.The Principal Secretary, Finance Deptt., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.The Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Subarnrekha Bhawan, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan 4.The Superintending Engineer, Design, Planning & Monitoring Circle, Chandil Complex, Subarnrekha Bhawan, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan 5.The Deputy Director (Sc.), Quality Control Division, Shankosai, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur 6.The Accountant General, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: Mr. Amrendra Pradhan,
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. S. Shrivastava, Advocate J.C. to G.P. IV --- 02/02.12.2013 The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs: (i) to send the pension papers of the petitioner to the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi after counting the total period of service including the service rendered by him before regularisation of his service in 2004. (ii) To treat the service of the petitioner pensionable with effect from 14.11.1986 from the date the other similarly situated persons have been taken under regular establishment. (iii) The petitioner was left out in the year 1986 for -2- regularisation at par with other similarly situated persons even the juniors in which the petitioner is not at fault, so the respondents be directed to count the entire service period or at least the shortage of pensionable period for the purposes of pensionary benefit. (iv) For the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing equitable justice to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed on muster roll on 05.06.1983. In the year, 1986 about 540 employees who were working on muster roll in Grade III and Grade IV were taken under regular establishment, but the petitioner's service was not regularised. Vide order dated 04.08.1987, the petitioner and other 10 employees were directed to continue to work and by letter dated 22.08.1987 the Chief Engineer made a request to the Special Officer, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar to regularise the service of the petitioner. A batch of writ petitions were filed by the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and all other persons except the petitioner and 10 others, were taken in regular service. Finally by order dated 28.07.2004, the petitioner's service was regularised and he was posted as typist at Quality Control Division, Jamshedpur. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2011 and since the petitioner was not granted pension, he has approached this Court. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a plea that the petitioner was engaged on consolidated salary as typist by order dated 03.03.1988 and his service has been regularised on 28.07.2004 only. Thus, he has completed only 7 years of regular service, and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner continued to work on muster roll -3- after 1987 and for no fault of the petitioner, his service was not regularised, though the service of other similarly situated persons were regularised. Relying on letters dated 22.08.1987 and 28.12.1993, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that those letters were written for the regularisation of the service of the petitioner and it would appear from the documents on record that the petitioner was appointed on a vacant sanction post, however the petitioner has been denied the benefit of pension. He has further relied on the provisions contained in Rule 59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules to contend that there is a power vested in the Government to relax the rules and the said power has not been exercised in the case of the petitioner, which is not justified. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, resisted the claim of the petitioner. 7. Rule 58 and 59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 are extracted below: 58. “The service of a 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. These three conditions are fully explained in the following sub-sections. declare that any specified kind of service rendered in 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) a non-gazetted capacity shall quality for pension; in individual cases, and subject to such conditions (2) as it may think fit to impose in each case, direct that service rendered by a Government servant shall count for pension.” 8. A perusal of Rule 58 would indicate that before a Government servant is entitled for pension, the employment must be on a substantive and permanent post. Rule 59 provides the -4- power in the provincial Government to grant relaxation in this regard. In the present proceeding it does not appear that the petitioner has taken any step seeking grant of relaxation from the
Decision
Government in terms of Rule 59. In the writ petition also, such a prayer has not been made by the petitioner. I further find that the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner was engaged on consolidated pay as typist and his service was regularised only on 28.07.2004. It does not appear that the petitioner approached this Court agitating a grievance for his regularisation from a date prior to 28.07.2004. It also does not appear from the record that prior to 28.07.2004 the petitioner was paid regular salary etc. as admissible to a regular employee. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (1996) 7 SCC 113, has contended that the petitioner also would be deemed to have continued in a quasi-permanent service and therefore, there is no reason the previous service of the petitioner that is, after 1987 cannot be considered for grant of pension. I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It does not appear from the record of this writ petition that the petitioner continued on a quasi-permanent post. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioner was appointed on a consolidated salary and this statement has not been controverted by the petitioner. 10. In 'Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another Vs. Santosh” reported in (2006) 11 SCC 157, the claim for family pension by the widow of an employee whose service was not regularised, was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)