Sohan Prasad Thakur … v. 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Jharkhand Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4806 of 2014 Sohan Prasad Thakur … … Petitioner Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Jharkhand Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Doeghar. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Nala (Jamtara), Jamtara. … … Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 4684 of 2016 Kamaldeo Chaudhary … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka. 3. 4. With W.P.(S) No. 2249 of 2017 … … Respondents Parmanand Singh … … Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. Versus The State of Jharkhand The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioners For the Respondent-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.SC-II Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.SC-I ----- 5/ 24.04.2024 The issues involved in these writ petitions are common and hence the same have been heard together and are being disposed of analogously. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondent-State. 4. In all these writ petitions, a common prayer has been made to direct the respondents to extend and fix their pension counting the past services rendered by them as daily wage worker in the work charged 1 establishment. Further prayer has been made in W.P.(S) No. 4684 of 2016 to quash and set aside the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka, by which the request of petitioner-Kamaldeo Choudhary for grant of pension and arrears of salary on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ in the light of letter dated 12.05.1993, has been rejected. 5. The concise facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially engaged in work charged establishment in the year 1981 as Pump Operator with the respondent concerned. It is contended in W.P.(S) No. 4684 of 2016 that the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhagalpur vide letter dated 7.5.1993 informed all the districts concerned that all the daily wagers will get minimum scale and allowances. This direction was complied in the district of Godda where minimum pay has been granted to the daily wagers. The petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4684 of 2016 was regularised in service with effect from 6.10.2009 and retired on 30.11.2015. Petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4606 of 2014 was regularised in regular establishment on 16.03.2011 and retired on 31.12.2012. Similar is the position of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2249 of 2017 where the petitioner’s service was regularised w.e.f. 22.03.2011 and retired from the service on 31.12.2016. However, the petitioners were not considered for pension and even the case of petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4684 of 2016 for grant of pension and arrears of salary counting the past services rendered as daily wagers has been rejected and as such, they are constrained to knock the door of this Court. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the specific order and direction passed by this Court in other matters, the petitioners are entitled for grant of pension and other benefits. He refers to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 498 of 2009 (Rameshwar Dubey Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) whereby the respondents were directed to take fresh decision for grant of pension in view of the judgments rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Gupteshwar Singh & ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2003) 1 BLJR 84. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court towards 2 the letter dated 20.3.2010 and submits that in compliance of the order of this Court, the Rameshwar Dubey has been extended the benefit of pension counting his initial appointment in work charge establishment. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are adopting pick and choose policy in not considering the cases of the petitioners on one hand and on the other hand, the respondents have considered the person, whose case is similarly situated as that of the petitioners. Hence, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for fixation of their pension counting their past services along with consequential benefits. 7. Brushing aside the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr.SC-II appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners are not entitled for any benefits as prayed for. He submits that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis as Pump Operator under Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka/Deoghar. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 18154 of 1999 directed the State Government that regularisation of the employees should be done as per Scheme dated 18.6.1993. In compliance of the said judgment, the Departmental Committee meeting was held on 28.5.2003 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand to appoint the daily wagers as per the Scheme dated 18.6.1993. Several daily wagers were appointed in three phases. The petitioners were appointed in regular establishment in second phase in the year 2009-2012. It is specific stand of the respondents that in the appointment letter of the petitioners, it has been mentioned that the employees should not claim anything other than this appointment in regular service. It is further case of the respondents that since after retirement, the petitioners were placed under contributory pension scheme prevalent at that point of time and hence, no pension could be extended to them as per the scheme. So far as the claim of equal pay and equal work is concerned, learned counsel draws the attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 30.10.2000 passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 18154 of 1999 (State of Bihar & Ors. Laghu Sichai Karmachari Sang & Ors.), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold that “the direction given by the 3 learned Single Judge that pending regularisation of these daily wage workers, they should get the minimum pay scale is set aside.” Learned counsel submits that in view of the said direction, the petitioners are not entitled for ‘equal pay for equal work’. Learned counsel further submits that as far as the claim of the petitioners for extending the benefit of pension, as was given to the similarly situated person, is not applicable, because the cases of the petitioners and that of Rameshwar Dubey are different. Learned counsel lastly submits that taking into account these
Decision
facts, the writ petitions being devoid of any merit and the same are fit to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents including the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it appears that admittedly the petitioners were appointed in compliance of the judgment delivered in S.L.P.(C) No. 18154 of 1999. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-7 has clearly observed that the order of learned Single Judge directing for minimum pay scale is not sustainable. As such, the claim of petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4689 of 2016 for ‘equal work for equal pay’ is not tenable in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by which judgment they were taken into regular establishment by respondents. 9. As far as the claim of pension is concerned, admittedly the length of service served by the petitioners is not sufficient to be qualified under the provisions of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2004, as they have not completed the minimum required service of ten years in regular establishment. The petitioners were regularised in the year 2009-12 and retired in the year 2012-16. The plea of the petitioners for counting their past services for the purpose of pension is not acceptable to this Court. Admittedly, the petitioners’ services as daily wage worker prior to their regularisation are not against the substantive and permanent post, which is one of the mandatory requirements as per Rule 58(2) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules for qualifying for the pensionery benefits. 10. The another stand of the petitioners that similarly situated person, namely, Ramasray Dubey has been extended the pensionery 4 benefits is also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the cases. Admittedly, Ramasray Dubey was working as temporary employee prior to his appointment in regular establishment, whereas the petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers and they have taken into regular establishment only in compliance of the order and direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 18154 of 1999. 11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have already received the entire emoluments, including the amount accrued towards contributory provident fund scheme, to which they were entitled to and nothing is payable to them as on day. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the petitioners are not entitled for counting their past services rendered as daily wage workers for the purpose of pensionery benefits. 13. There being no merit in these writ petitions and hence, the same are dismissed. RC (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 5