State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of School v. Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1. Ram Ikbal Singh 2. Nimayi Chandra Rakshit 3. Anil Kumar Bhagat 4. Rajkumar Sah 5. Brajesh Yadav 6. Prabhunath Tiwari 7. Anant Kumar 8. Radha Pandit W.P.(S) No. 1150 of 2022 … … … Petitioners 1. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of School Versus Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj 4. District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj 5. Accountant General, Jharkhand … … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Petitioner : For the Respondents: Dr. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC For the Accountant General: Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate 08/14.12.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay pension, gratuity and all other post-retirement benefits which they are entitled for along with statutory and penal interest. At the very outset, Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confines his prayer for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of Gratuity by calculating the entire period of service rendered from the initial date of appointment. According to the petitioners, in the year 1983, they had been appointed as Assistant Teachers in different Government Middle Schools and after rendering more than 38 years of satisfactory services, they retired in the years 2021-22 on attaining their age of superannuation. It is case of the petitioners that after their retirement, they made representation before the respondent authorities claiming retiral benefits as well as fixation of pension and gratuity but not a single penny was paid to them. It is specific case of the petitioners that the other teachers appointed along with the petitioners were extended the benefits but petitioners were denied the same and as such they have been constrained to knock door of this Court. 2. 3. 4. RC 2 5. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vociferously argues that at one point of time, services of the petitioners were terminated and against the same, they preferred C.W.J.C. No. 167 of 1985 and other analogous cases and the order of termination was stayed. In view of stay order, petitioners continued in services and as per order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in Civil Appeal No. 11699 of 1990 and other analogous cases, petitioners and others were reinstated into the service with an observation that if there had been a break in service on account of termination, shall have the credit of past service both in respect to payment of salary, seniority and other service benefits. It is specific case of the petitioners which has not been denied by the respondents rather admitted that they continued into the services after stay order and in their case, the stay vacation was not acted upon. During pendency of the instant writ petition, the post retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner but they are aggrieved by non-payment of amount of gratuity from their initial date of appointment. Learned counsel submits that in view of orders and directions of the then Hon’ble Patna High Court as well Hon’ble Supreme Court, there has been no break in service rather petitioners continued into the service after order of stay passed by the Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are entitled for the amount of gratuity from the date of their initial appointment. In course of his arguments, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 17.01.2023, passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education and also Annexure-02, dated 10.01.2023, passed by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj dated 10.01.2023, which shows recommendation in favour of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Dr. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III assisted by Mr. Ashwini Bhushan opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire amount has already been paid to the petitioner and they are not entitled for calculation of amount of gratuity from the date of their initial appointment as their services were terminated and, thereafter, as per order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they were reinstated into the service. Petitioners are entitled for the amount from the date of reinstatement as has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons who were terminated. RC 3 7. 8. Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel representing Accountant General submits that office of the Accountant General acts as per the recommendations of the State. If the State recommends that petitioners are entitled for the gratuity from the date of their initial appointment, the same will be considered and authority slip will be issued after recommendation of the State. Having gone through rival submissions of the parties and perusal of records, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly petitioners are entitled for the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits including pension from the date of initial appointment. It is an admitted fact that petitioners continued into the services form the date of their initial appointment. There was stay which was subsequently vacated. But it is the respondent authorities who have allowed to continue the petitioners into the service and therefore, they cannot take a “U” Turn claiming that since there was stay order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court which was vacated and as such they are not entitled. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents in view of specific recommendation of Deputy Director, Secondary Education dated 17.01.2023 and that of District Education Officer dated 10.01.2023 are contrary to submission of learned counsel for the respondents. In view of specific recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education and the District Education Officer and in view of the fact that they have worked from the year 1982 – 82, without any break in service, they are entitled for the benefits as claimed for. 10. In view of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, I, hereby, direct the respondents authorities to pay entire amount to the petitioners calculating the same from the date of initial appointment i.e. the year 1982 – 83. 11. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Pending Interlocutory applications also stands