Baibhaw Gahlaut v. The State of Jharkhand and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021 Baibhaw Gahlaut ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … … ... Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No. 857 of 2010 1. Chandrashekhar Prasad Sinha 2. Pawan Kumar 3. Rambha Singh 4. Neelam devi 5. Pushpa Mandal ... ... ... ... ... Petitioners Versus Sahibganj Municipality and others … … ... Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No. 7009 of 2013 Ashok Kumar Mishra ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … … ... Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No. 4269 of 2018 Hari Narayan Prasad ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … … ... Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No. 7265 of 2019 Ram Naresh Sharma ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority and others … … ... Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No. 712 of 2021 Radha Raman Singh ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … … ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. --------- SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- -2- For the Petitioner(s): M/s. Sudhanshu Shekhar Choudhary, Kabisha Goenka, Onkar Nath Tiwary, Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Naiyar Eqbal, Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj, Adamya Kerketta, Advocates For the Respondents: M/s. Sharad Kaushal, (A.C. to A.A.G.-III), Rahul Saboo (G.P.-II), Gaurang Jajodia (A.C. to G.P.- II), Harsh Preet Singh (A.C. to G.P.-V), Kishore Kumar Singh (S.C.-V), Krishna Prajapati (A.C. to S.C.-V), Manoj Kumar (G.A.-III), Krishna Murari, Rajesh Kumar, Ranjit Kumar, Amit Kumar Verma, Manoj Tandon, Rajesh Kumar, Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocates 05/Dated: 09.05.2023 --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Decision
ORDER 1) This bunch of the writ petitions and the Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021 has mainly espoused one genre of grievance i.e. the inability of the Sahibgnaj Municipality, Jharkhand Minor and Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA), Palamau Zila Parishad and the Urban Development Department and similarly situated public utility, to meet their obligations towards their retired employees. The petitioners in all these cases except W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021 are the retired employees of these institutions, which are, in essence, instrumentalities of the State. These institutions are at present not financially viable to pay the retiral dues and family pensions of the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petitions have been brought together along with W.P. (PIL) No. 2266 of 2021. 2) Admittedly, all these institutions were being funded by the State Government or were established under the aegis of the State Government. Now, the relevant question is whether in case of their inability to meet the financial obligations towards their own employees, can the State Government be directed to make provisions for the same? -3- 3) In this connection, we take note of the Preamble of the Constitution of India, wherein the Constitution Assembly has incorporated, “ … … … and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of this nation; … … …” (underlined to emphasise) 4) Thus, it is clear that the Indian State, the State of Jharkhand, being one of its federal partners, is a welfare State wherein the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation has been kept at the same pedestal. It is being time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as many High Courts that the right to life as enshrined in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not mean mere animal existence but it encompasses within itself the right to life with all human dignities. 5) A person who has rendered majority of his life in service of an institution which is either funded by the State Government or is established under the guidance and patronage of the State Government cannot be denied of their retiral dues or family pensions because of the commercial inviability of the institutions and in such matters, the State should make endeavour to see that the grievances of such individuals are redressed. 6) In the State of Uttarakhand, similar matters came before the Division Bench of the Court headed by the then Chief Justice K.M. Josepsh (as His Lordship was then) in the case of Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam [Writ Petition (S/B) No.494 of 2015], wherein appropriate directions were given for payment of the retiral dues and family -4- pensions of the retired employees of the Payjal Sansadhan of Uttarakhand State. 7) Retiral benefit is not largesse, actually it is the right of the employees to get retiral benefits. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that it is not mercy appeal before the Court to pass order showing mercy, rather, the Officers who are responsible for not making the retiral benefits in time should be handled very seriously. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-5 of the judgment passed in case of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 has held thus: “5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pensions and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pension for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case.” 8) In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 it was held that pension is not bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the Government; instead the right to pension is -5- valuable right vested in a government servant. The relevant para-31 has held thus:- “31. …... But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant.” 9) Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, we hereby dispose of this bunch of writ petitions including W.P. (PIL) No.2266 of 2021 directing the State of Jharkhand to bring out a scheme within a period of six months hence to redress the grievances of these petitioners and similarly situated persons in the State, so that their retiral dues and family pensions can be paid to them in time. 10) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 11) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) A.F.R. Manoj/MM