1. Nawal Kishore Singh Choudhary 2. Sadanand Singh Choudhary 3. Mathura Prasad Das 4 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Co- operative Society
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1882 of 2023 ---------- 1. Nawal Kishore Singh Choudhary 2. Sadanand Singh Choudhary 3. Mathura Prasad Das 4. Lagen Chandra Mahto 5. Chinta Devi ………. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Co- operative Society (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co- operative Department) Ranchi. 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Society, Department of Co-operative Society, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, the Dhanbad Central Bank Co- operative Ltd., Dhanbad. 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Sub- Regional Office, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Facts
09/ 27.02.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : :
Legal Reasoning
Earlier, the petitioners have moved this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6457 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ application by order dated 14.07.2022 directing the petitioners to file fresh representation, and the respondents to pass reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners filed representation before the respondents but no heed was paid and hence, they had been compelled to knock the door of this Court in contempt i.e. Cont. Case (C). No. 796 of 2022. However, during the pendency of the said contempt case, the respondents have passed reasoned order denying the claim of the petitioners. 4. It is the case of petitioners that vide order dated 20.09.1976, the State Government took a decision to reorganize the Societies and appoint Paid Managers in each and every Societies. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as Paid Managers under the respondents after being selected by the District Establishment Committee, Dhanbad and since then, they are getting salary on regular basis from the respondents. It is the further case of petitioners that the Government issued a circular in the year 1995, by which the post which the petitioners were holding, was abolished however the petitioners were allowed to continue their services till further orders. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sagh through its joint Secretary, Patna filed a writ petition numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court praying therein to absorb the members of Sangh in equivalent post in any other Department and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition. Thereafter, the State Government moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7375 of 1995 and Hon’ble Court, after
Arguments
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-III Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ---------- 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order contained in Ref. No. 730 dated 15.02.2023, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the case of petitioners for grant of pension by counting their past services has been turned down. Petitioners have further prayed that after quashing the aforesaid order, a direction be issued upon the respondents to fix their pension by counting the past services rendered by them as Paid Manager of Primary Agriculture Credit Society in the Co-operative Department of Unified State of Bihar, in terms of Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995 as has been done in case of other employees of Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1 3.
Decision
hearing the issue involved, disposed of the said Civil Appeal observing that a reasonable number of posts available – including even those in the process of recruitment – be set apart for being filled-up by the respondents and directed the respondents to hold a separate examination/ recruitment test for them as they cannot be asked to participate in fresh recruitment process for entering into the government service. 2 5. In light of the observations and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents floated/ published an advertisement for taking Limited Competitive Departmental Examination under the Co-operative Department in the year 2002 to be conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for absorption of the Paid Managers including the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in the said examination but they were not declared successful. It is the case of the petitioners that the persons who were declared selected, have been recommended for their posting in Dhanbad Collectoriate as Assistant (Class-III). Though the persons who were selected by way of examination in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, were further appointed and joined as Assistant and their service books were opened but they were treated as fresh appointees and their past services were not counted for other benefits like pension, etc. Thus, they have been compelled to knock the door of this Court and by order dated 13.04.2016, the Court was pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh. It is the further case of petitioners that the Board of Directors of Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. considering impending shortage of employees after 23 PACS have been selected for absorption in the government service resulting the sufferings of the work of Bank, decided to send the names of persons who were not selected in the examination but were having work experience for granting permission for absorption in the Bank from the Department of Co- operative Society, Jharkhand vide its letter dated 14.11.2002. 6. Thereafter, pursuant to the permission received from the government to absorb the petitioners in the Bank, the Bank by its letter dated 27.12.2003 absorbed the petitioners’ service in the Bank as Assistant and pursuant to their absorption in the Bank, the service books of petitioners were opened by the Bank. Thereafter, the petitioners served the respondent-Bank sincerely and diligently, and on attaining the age of superannuation, they got retired on different dates. It is the case of petitioners that after retirement, a meagre amount of less than Rs.1000/- per month was fixed as 3 pension of petitioners whereas, they were entitled for the pension of Rs.14000/- per month. Since the respondents have denied to count the past services of petitioners for the purpose of extending the pensionery benefits, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 7. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously urges that impugned order dated 15.02.2023 rejecting the case of petitioners for grant of pension without calculating the past services of petitioners as Paid Manager, is illegal, arbitrary and the same is fit to be rejected citing the reason that their absorption in Dhanbad Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. as Assistant cannot be treated as fresh appointment. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents cannot be allowed to deny the petitioners entitlement of various kind of benefits of long services like pension by unjustly treating their absorption in the year 2003 as fresh appointment. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners are entitled for being treated at par with the other employees of Dhanbad Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. and are entitled for similar benefits what have been extended to other employees of the Bank. Learned counsel accordingly argues that the respondents be directed to fix the pension of petitioners taking into consideration their entire period of services in the Co-operative Bank. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that stand of the petitioners is totally misconceived and the petitioners cannot claim any parity with the other Paid Managers as they are neither employees of the State Government nor employees of the District Central Co-operative Bank rather they are the employees of District Cadre Co- operative Society. Referring to Section-58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, learned counsel for the respondents submits that benefits of the pension can be extended to the Government Servants, so the departmental stand taken has rightly and lawfully been enunciated in strict tune with the various judicial pronouncements. Learned counsel further argues that the employees with whom petitioners are claiming parity were declared successful in the 4 limited competitive examination and their past services were counted in view of orders and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Since petitioners have not contributed, they cannot claim pensionery benefits counting their past services. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity for not counting their past services. 9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, the Paid Managers are neither the employees of State Government nor employees of District Central Co-operative Bank rather, they are employees of District Cadre Co-operative Society. (II) Section-58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules clearly depicts that benefits of pension can only be extended to the employees of State Govt. so the impugned order is fully justified as no right has accrued to the present petitioners to pray for counting of their past services for getting the pensionery as well as other benefits since they have not contributed for the same. (III) Merely because their services were absorbed, the same cannot be construed as their legal right for counting their past services rendered as Paid Managers. (IV) Only those Paid Managers were to be eligible for extending the pensionary benefity counting their past services who had been declared qualified in the limited examination but on the other hand, these petitioners who have however appeared in the said examination but failed to qualify. There has to be an equal qualification for any consideration in accordance with law. (V) There cannot be a class within the class. A lot of Paid Managers who qualified in the limited examination were considered as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners’ case does not stand on similar footing. Rightly, their cases have been rejected by not extending the benefits of pension counting their past services. 5 (VI) Any protection can be given in view of the legal rights. Since the petitioners have failed to qualify in the limited departmental examination and also, they had neither approached the Hon’ble Apex Court nor caused with any observations, their claim is not at par with the other employees-Paid Managers who had qualified in the examination and as such, they cannot claim parity with those employees. 10. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 6