Jai Prakash Das 1. Kuthu Murmu 2. 3. Bishnu Das 4. Nimay Chandra Jha v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2091 of 2023 Jai Prakash Das 1. Kuthu Murmu 2. 3. Bishnu Das 4. Nimay Chandra Jha Gulabi Bhandari 5. 6. Shreekant Tewary 7. Ganesh Prasad Das 8. Alakh Niranjan Sahay 9. Bipin Kumar Sinha 10. Bhanu Sharma 11. 12. Prabhu Hansda 13. Sanjay Kumar Dubey 14. Nityanand Pandey 15. Mahendra Prasad Verma 16. Subal Chandra Patralekh 17. Bholanath Marik 18. Arvind Kumar Choudhary 19. Girja Prasad Singh 20. Manju Devi 21. Vijay Kumar Das Jagannath Pandey Versus …. Petitioners 1. 2. 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Secretary, Department of Planning and Finance, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. 6. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. 7. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 8. Director Group Provident Fund, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 9. District Provident Fund Officer, Jamtara. 10. District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar. 11. Accountant General, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. W.P.(S) No. 2747 of 2021 WITH …. Respondents Subal Chandra Singh 1. Akshay Kumar 2. 3. Krishnan Vallab Pandey 4. Rajkishore Rao 5. 6. Awadh Kishore Pandit Fakirchandra Mahto 1 7. Uttam Kumar Chaterjee 8. Abni Kumar Bajpeyee 9. Hemchandra Das 10. Tapan Kumar Mudi 11. Parmeshwar Manjhi 12. Basudeo Mahto 13. Pawan Kumar Pandit 14. Md. Suleman 15. Sachidanand Ray 16. Ayodhya Prasad Sah 17. Fudan Soren 18. Puran Chandra Mandal 19. Umakant Mishra 20. Shivkumar Mishra 21. Binay Mohan Gupta 22. Subeshwar Prasad Verma 23. Prafulla Kamal Roy 24. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary 25. Om Prakash Sah 26. Mateshwar Das 27. 28. Saroj Kumar Bajpayee 29. Pravir Kumar Mishra 30. Shiv Shankar Kapri 31. Ashok Kumar Bhokta 32. 33. Sitaram Mahto 34. Upendra Prasad Yadav 35. Shreekant Yadav 36. Mahendra Mariya 37. Nankeshwar Rajak 38. Bhikno Mahto 39. Binod Kumar Das 40. Doctor Tudu 41. Bharat Das 42. Suresh Pd 43. Upendra Mahto Jay Prakash Mishra Johny Joseph …. Petitioners Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka. 2 6. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 7. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 8. Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj. 9. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 10. Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. 11. Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 12. District Provident Fund Officer, Dumka. 13. District Provident Fund Officer, Pakur. 14. District Provident Fund Officer, Sahebganj. 15. District Provident Fund Officer, Jamtara. 16. District Provident Fund Officer, Deoghar. 17. District Provident Fund Officer, Godda. 18. Accountant Genera, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioners For the Resp-State
Legal Reasoning
Court, as above, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1869 of 2017 (Lalit Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors) was of the view that the past services rendered by the petitioners on adhoc establishment cannot be ignored. 9. In the present case, the respondent-State has also issued a notification circulated to all Commissioners vide memo no. 2562 dated 5.8.2006 in which it has been specifically observed that appointment was not a fresh appointment, rather, it was a case of adjustment / regularization. The petitioners are not claiming any salary for the said period nor they are claiming seniority. Since their services have already been adjusted and regularized, they are entitled for consideration of the past services for grant of pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme, as existing prior to 5 2004. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, the impugned order contained in memo no. 4630 dated 26.12.2022 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioners under the old pension scheme as existing prior to 2004 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.
Arguments
------ : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate Mr. Shamaiel Raza, Advocate : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I ----- 9/ 04.12.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 70/22 dated 23.12.2022, by which the respondents have decided to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioners under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules from the date of their absorption in services as per Resolution no. 143 dated 5.9.2022. Further prayer has been made by the petitioners to extend the benefit of pension under old pension scheme prior to 2004 counting their date of initial appointments. 3. The background of the case is that the petitioners were appointed in Census Department in the year 1991 and posted within the territory which now falls under the State of Jharkhand. Having found the services of the petitioners satisfactory, the Government of Jharkhand decided to regularize the services of the employees working in Census Department including the petitioners and to that effect, a notification contained in memo no. 5021 dated 03.11.2004 has been issued, by which a 3 total of 602 employees including the petitioners were regularized. It is specific case of the petitioners that they were regularized by the order dated 03.11.2004, but they were given posting in the year 2007-2012 and considering their date of posting after regularization / adjustment in different departments, the petitioners were not extended the benefit of pension under old pension scheme, as they have not served the minimum period of ten years for getting pension. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not the fresh appointees, rather, they were adjusted in different departments of the State Government after regularization. Learned senior counsel further submits that actually the petitioners were appointed in the year 1991 and they were regularized with effect from 03.11.2004 and hence, they were entitled for pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme. Learned senior counsel further submits that treating the petitioners to be appointed upon their posting in different departments of the State from the year 2010-12 is not tenable, as it is respondent-authorities which delayed the matter of posting of the petitioners and there is no fault on the part of the petitioners and hence, they are entitled for pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel refers the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1869 of 2017, wherein the selection process was started in the year 2003 and joining letters were given in the year 2005 and in such circumstances, the Court has been pleased to hold that the employee is entitled for old pension scheme. Learned senior counsel also refers the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016 wherein it was held that seniority will be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of confirmation and posting. Learned senior counsel fairly submits that the petitioners are not claiming any salary of the past services, rather, they are claiming pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme counting the past services and hence, a direction be given to the respondents to consider their cases for pension prior to 2004 upon quashment of the impugned order dated 26.12.2022. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that 4 since the petitioners have not completed ten years of service from the date of adjustment / regularization, they are not entitled for pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme i.e. prior to 2004. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are fresh appointees and it is not a case of adjustment or regularization. Justifying the stand of the respondents, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order as the petitioners have not rendered the minimum ten years of service in regular establishment for getting pensionery benefits. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1991. They have rendered more than 30 years of service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were regularized with effect from 3.11.2004. The past services rendered by the petitioners cannot be ignored even if their appointment was on adhoc basis. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 509, wherein it has been held that seniority is to be counted from the date of initial appointment even on adhoc basis. 8. Considering the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Decision
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. RC / R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 6