The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2664 of 2023 1. Jagdish Chaubey 2. Md. Monifuddin Quraishi 3. Raghunandan Prasad 4. Moti Ram 5. Shivbalak Thakur 6. Bhuneshwar Ram 7. Mahabir Prasad Kushwaha 8. Mahabir Ram - V E R S U S – … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hazaribagh 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Ramgarh … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : For the Respondents For the R. Nos. 4 and 5
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Deepmala, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate 08/29.04.2024 2. Heard the parties. Petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to calculate and pay difference of 6th Pay/Pension Revision as well as 7th Pay/Pension Revision upon pension of the petitioners from their respective date of revision along with statutory interest. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay pension which has not been paid to the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 from April, 2022 till date and dues to the petitioner nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8 from December, 2019 till date as well as regular monthly pension. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel submits that petitioners are retired employees of Mines Board, Hazaribagh whereas the working staffs of the Mines Board were absorbed by the Urban Development Department. After retirement, petitioners received retiral benefits and were also granted pensionary benefits which was subsequently stopped and hence they have been compelled to knock door of this Court. Petitioners are old and ailing RC 1 W.P.(S) No. 2664 of 2023 persons and at this stage of life, they cannot be harassed any more at the hands of the State. On one pretext or the other, the respondents have tried to deny the benefits to the petitioners and as such appropriate order may be passed. 4. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned GP-III appearing on behalf of the State argues that that it is only after order of the Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 6257 of 2018, they have made payment. A sum of Rs.3,93,08,450/- has already been released towards the arrear of pension to the retired employees of Hazaribagh Mines Board who have attained the age of 75 years. The allotment was made in compliance of orders of the Hon’ble Court after taking approval of Finance Department. These actions were taken in absolute special circumstances and cannot be taken as a precedence. The specific stand of the respondents is that the pension of retired employees of the erstwhile Hazaribagh Mines Board should be paid at par with the employees of the Urban Local Bodies from the Municipal Funds as there is no provisions for allotment of grants in pension head to the Urban Local Bodies. Learned counsel further argues that there is no provisions for allotment of funds by the department for payment of retiral dues of the retired employees. However, the Urban Local Bodies have been making requisition for allotment of funds from the department for the same, which is against the provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and the rules framed by the department. There is no merit and as such the same is fit to be rejected. 5. What has already been settled, the respondents are trying to unsettle the legal proposition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners retired from the Mines Board, Hazaribagh and they received the retiral benefits and were also extended the pensionary benefits. Surprisingly, the pensionary benefits were stopped without any notice and without any valid reasons on the ground that it is the Municipal Corporation who has to generate its own fund and thereafter it has to be paid to its employees. The retired employees of the Mines Board have nothing to do with it. When an employee has rendered service and the same has been duly approved and have retired without any complaint, are entitled for retiral and pensionary benefits as per rule. RC 2 W.P.(S) No. 2664 of 2023 The pensionary benefits are not the bounty to be disbursed at the sweet-will of the Authorities. It is the Constitutional and fundamental rights of an employee to receive the retiral benefits, if there are no legal impediment. Due to lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the petitioners have been subjected to hardship and have suffered monetary loss. The respondents have tried to justify that it is only after order of the Court they have made payment of pension and the same cannot be taken as a precedence. Such contention of the respondents is not at all acceptable to this Court. There cannot be any piecemeal payments of the pensionary benefits. Once they have accepted their services, the same has to be approved by the respondents/State. Nothing can stop the petitioners from getting their pensionary benefits. There is no judicial pronouncement which debars the employees retired from the Mines Board from getting pensionary benefits and in absence of the same, the State cannot take a different stand. The respondent authorities have given a complete go-bye to the ration laid down in the celebrated Judgment passed in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, which reads as under: “33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order, the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that the Pension act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” to 6. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision dated 31.8.2010 in case of “Harbans Lal Vrs. The State of Punjab and others” which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 17901 of 2011, has categorically held that the clauses of the RC 3 W.P.(S) No. 2664 of 2023 Scheme have to be read by keeping in view the fact that pension is not a bounty of the State and it is earned by employees after rendering long service to fall back upon after their retirement. The same cannot be arbitrarily denied 7. The earlier order of the Court was interpreted by the State in their own way without any legal basis. It was said that since Court has ordered that those who have attained the age of 75 years only, they are entitled for pension. Such interpretation of the State is deprecated. All the employees who have retired and getting pension, are entitled for pension till their entitlement irrespective of their age. It was observed by the Court that since they have attained the age of 75 years, they cannot be made to beg before the State or the Court for entitlement. The respondents have compelled the petitioners to rush to this Court for getting pensionary benefits. In a welfare State such kind of action of the respondents – State cannot be appreciated. 8. In view of aforesaid observations, judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur, I, hereby, direct the respondents to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioners as per their entitlement within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that petitioners are entitled for regular pensionary benefits as per their entitlement every month. While extending the benefits, the respondents will also consider the benefits for grant of benefits of 6th and 7th Pay/Pension revision with effect from 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016 respectively and difference of amount, if any, be given to them. 9. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ
Decision
petition stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 4 W.P.(S) No. 2664 of 2023