Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department v. Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4884 of 2014 ------- Shesh Nath Shukla, son of late Suraj Shukla, resident of R.E.O., Works Sub-Division, Nimdih, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, Dist. Saraikella- Kharsawan. Versus …….. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC Township, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Saraikela, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela, Dist. Saraikela-Kharsawan. ……. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1877 of 2018 ------ Janeshwar Dubey, son of late Sudama Dubey, resident of Village-Kirto, P.O. Gentha, P.S. Leshiganj, Dist. Palamu. ……….. Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Versus Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. …………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 2054 of 2018 ------- 1. Ramesh Kumar Pathak, son of late Rajeshwar Pathak, resident of Forest Colony, near Block, Quarter No. 13, P.O., P.S. and Dist. Latehar. 2. Sachchida Nand Singh, son of late Laldeo Singh, resident of Government Quarter, P.O. & P.S. Barwadih, Kutku Range, Dist. Latehar. 3. Rabindra Kumar Sinha, son of late Yogendra Nath Lal, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, Block Colony, Dist. Latehar. 1 4. Parmeshwar Sahu, son of late Ram Dayal Sahu, resident of village and P.O. Katma, P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar. 5. Sk. Kayum Ansari, son of late Sk. Ahmad Ansari, resident of village Ichak, P.O. and P.S. Latehar, Dist. Latehar. ……….. Petitioners 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Versus Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. ………… Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate Ms. Indrani S. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, AC to GP-III Mr. Apoorva Singh, AC to SC(M)-III ------ 2. 3. 4. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are same and
Decision
similar, they have been tagged and heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith pay the entire retiral benefits viz. pension under GPF Scheme, Gratuity, Provident Fund after transferring the amount deducted under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). As per the facts narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4884 of 2014 was engaged as daily wages employee on 01.10.84 vacant and sanctioned Class-IV post of Chowkidar in Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Nimidih, Chandil and he was working continuously till 15.01.10 and performed his duty to the full satisfaction of his higher authority. Similarly, petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1877 of 2018 was engaged as Clerk on daily wages 2 basis in the year 1983 and petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 2054 of 2018 were engaged as Class-IV post and Range Clerk in different Division of the Forest Department in between 1982 to 1984. They were working sincerely, diligently and to the full satisfaction of the respondents-Department. 5. It is the case of petitioners that a respondents vide resolution dated 18.06.1993 whereby it has been decided that persons who have been appointed prior to 01.08.1985 and have completed 240 days of continuous service in a year shall be considered for regularization. Thereafter, services of several persons were regularized either by the respondents themselves or as per direction of the Hon’ble Court but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the services of the present petitioners could not be regularized. Hence, the petitioners along with others moved this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6505 of 2005 with a prayer for regularization of their services. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2006 directing the respondents to take appropriate decision regarding regularization/ absorption of the services of petitioners. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 4884 of 2014 was regularized on 16.01.10 and subsequently, on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.03.2013. Similarly, services of petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1877 of 2018 was regularized and he superannuated on 31.01.2018 and petitioners in W.P.(S). No.2054 of 2018 were regularized in between 2011 to 2013 and they retired in between 2018 to 2024. 6. It is the further cases of petitioners that though they have rendered the services of more than 29-30 years yet the retiral benefits have not been extended to the petitioners. The ground of such rejection was that at the time when petitioners were regularized the New Pension Scheme came into effect and under the said Scheme they have 3 already received the amount of Contributory Pension and as such, not entitled for pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously urges that petitioners have continuously worked for more than 29-30 years in permanent establishment of the respondent-Department as daily wages employee and they were entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment though their services were regularized after much delay in between 2010-2013. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 37 of 2022 (Nagendra Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), learned counsel submits that petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits taking into account the period rendered by them in permanent establishment from the date of their initial appointment. Learned counsel further argues that petitioners are not claiming any salary but the period spent by them as daily wages employee has to be counted for pensionary benefits as they have rendered more than 29-30 years of unblemished service career in the permanent establishment of the respondent-Department. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically argues that services of the petitioners were regularized in between 2010 to 2013 and as such, they were not entitled for pensionary benefits from the date of their initial appointment. Learned counsel further argues that petitioners were never appointed on sanctioned and vacant post and even after retirement some of the petitioners have already received the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund and as such, they are not entitled for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further argues that the services 4 of the petitioners were regularized in the year 2004 and by that time the New Pension Scheme came into effect. Learned counsel further argues that case law relied upon by the petitioners does not come to their help and as such, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed in limine. 9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits since they have rendered more than 29-30 years of services in a regular Establishment. Merely because their services for regularization were considered after enactment of New Pension Scheme does not give an opportunity to the respondents to forfeit the entire pensionary benefits of the petitioner. It has been held in plethora of judgments that penionary benefits are not bounty to be paid at the hands of the respondents. It is not the sweet-will of the respondents to grant pensionary benefits. Admittedly, an employee who has worked for more than 29-30 years are entitled for counting the said period of services for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 10. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talisibhai Dhanjibhai Patel [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 2022]. Further, this Court also reiterated in the same view in W.P.(S). No. 37 of 2022 and thereafter granted the same benefits. It is the date of appointment and not the date of regularization which has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed prior to 2004 and they are not claiming any salary for the said period, rather, they are only claiming that the services rendered by them prior to their regularization may be counted for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. 11. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors., reported in (1996) 7 SCC 113, wherein their Lordships have held as under: “3………... There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the Government for 18 ½ years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. …………………….” In case of the State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talisibhai Dhanjibhai Patel [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “……….. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 5 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable.” Further, in case of Jharkhand State Non-gazetted Employees Federation and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 3029, wherein this Court referring the various judgements has held that the employees are entitled for pension taking into consideration the past service rendered by them. This judgement has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As such, this issue is no more res-integra and it is now well settled that the past services should be reckoned for extending the pensionery benefits. 12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court held that the past service rendered by the petitioners shall be counted only to the extent of shortfall in qualifying period of service for grant of pension. The respondents are 6 directed to extend the pensionary benefits accordingly within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if any amount has been received by the petitioner under the head of Contributory Provident Fund, the same shall be refunded to the respondents immediately.. 13. Resultantly, all these writ petitions stand allowed. 14. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. kunal/ (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 7