1. Pano Devi 2. Ram Nagina Bhagat 3. Lachhmi Devi 4. Sharda Devi 5 v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2458 of 2008 1. Pano Devi 2. Ram Nagina Bhagat 3. Lachhmi Devi 4. Sharda Devi 5. Anjani Kumari 6. Munita Kumari 7. Guriya Kumari Vs. …. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Secretary, Food Material, Public Distribution & Consumer Forum Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Director, Public Education Department, Jharkhand Ranchi, Project Building, Ranchi 5. Sub Divisional Education Officer, Giridih … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 3660 of 2009 Bindu Devi …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. Vs. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Director, Primary & Mass Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi District Education Officer, Giridih … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 4702 of 2009 Adhik Kumar …. Petitioner Vs. The State of Jharkhand The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi The Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 4963 of 2013
Legal Reasoning
been decided/answered by Full Bench of this Court in its judgment delivered on 16.06.2017 in W.P.(S) No.4110 of 2013 along with other analogous cases and since the Full Bench has answered against the petitioners in para 46 & 47 of its judgment, this case may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No.4110 of 2013 along with other analogous cases. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioners objected the same and submits that the Hon’ble Full Bench has not decided the issues involved in these writ petitions, which is clear from para 48 thereof. 3. From perusal of the records and judgment of Hon’ble Full Bench dated 16.06.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.4110 of 2013 along with other analogous cases, it appears that the Hon’ble Full Bench has already answered against the petitioners in para 46 & 47, which reads as follows:-
Arguments
Sanjay Prasad Keshri Pankaj Prasad The State of Jharkhand Vs. …. Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 2 2. 3. 4. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Director, Primary and Secondary Education & Public Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi … Respondents CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L & C) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate ----------- I.A. No.884 of 2023 in W.P.(S) No.3660 of 2009 04/ 03.03.2023 The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for substitution of legal heir of sole petitioner, who died on 26.10.2019, during the pendency of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole petitioner has already died on 26.10.2019, leaving behind his legal heirs. The name of the legal heirs of deceased petitioner as mentioned in para No.5 of the instant interlocutory application. However, all the legal heirs have authorized to Bindu Devi (mother of legal heirs of sole petitioner as mentioned in para 5 to the interlocutory application) to pursue the case and as such, her name may kindly be substituted in place of sole petitioner, in the interest of justice and proper adjudication of the lis. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to it. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in para 2 onwards of the instant Interlocutory Application, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of sole petitioner namely, Yugal Kishore Prasad from the array of the parties and other records and in his place, name of Bindu Devi as mentioned in prayer portion of the said interlocutory application be substituted from today itself. Accordingly, I.A. No. 884 of 2023 stands allowed. W.P.(S) No. 2458 of 2008 with W.P.(S) No. 3660 of 2009 With W.P.(S) No. 4702 of 2009 with W.P.(S) No. 4963 of 2013 3 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that issues involved in these writ petitions have already
Decision
46. We accordingly hold and answer the reference in the following terms: None of the employees / petitioners are entitled to count their past services under the Adult Education / Non-formal Education / Mass Education scheme for the purpose of their pensionary benefits. This principle would apply to all the broad categories of petitioners enumerated in the opening paragraph of the writ petition i.e. (i) those employees / petitioners who after being declared surplus have either retired or died before they were absorbed pursuant to the notification dated 30.5.2007;(ii) the second category of petitioners who after being declared surplus w.e.f 16.5.2001 were absorbed in government service vide notification dated 30.5.2007 and have retired thereafter and (iii) the petitioners who are / were still working as on the date of filing of the writ petitions under the government of Jharkhand after being absorbed vide notification dated 30.5.2007. We uphold the conditions enumerated at clause 11 and 12 of the absorption notification dated 30.5.2007 where under appointment of such persons were treated as fresh appointment and their past services would not be counted for the purpose of seniority or initial pay fixation. 4 47. However, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid decision would apply to all such persons / petitioners/ employees whose cases have not become final pursuant to the dismissal of the S.L.P.s by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier such as S.L.P (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011, S.L.P. (CC. No 3780 of 2011), S.L.P (CC 19981 of 2011). The petitioners herein cannot claim application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or equity or seek consideration on grounds of hardship also in such circumstances. In this regard, we derive strength from the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vrs. Rakesh Kumar & others reported in 2001(4) SCC 309. We are inclined to quote the relevant passage hereunder: - “21. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of the GO, a number of persons are granted pensionary benefits even though they have not completed 20 years of service, and, therefore, at this stage, the Court should not interfere and see that the pensionary benefits granted to the respondents are not disturbed and are released as early as possible. In our view, for grant of pension the members of BSF are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. The CCS (Pension) Rules nowhere provide that a person who has resigned before completing 20 years of service as provided in Rule 48-A is entitled to pensionary benefits. Rule 19 of the BSF Rules also does not make any provision for grant of pensionary benefits. It only provides that if a member of the Force who resigns and to whom permission in writing is granted to resign then the authority granting such permission may reduce the pensionary benefits if he is eligible to get the pension. Therefore, by erroneous interpretation of the Rules if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrary to the statutory rules. In such cases, 5 there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel. Further, in such cases there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship. If the Rules are not providing for grant of pensionary benefits it is for the authority to decide and frame appropriate rules but the Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of so-called hardship likely to be caused to a person who has resigned without completing qualifying service for getting pensionary benefits. As a normal rule, pensionary benefits are granted to a government servant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement except in those cases where there are special provisions”. 4. In view of judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted in all these writ petitions. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondents along with a copy of this order, within a period of four weeks’. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 5. Needless to say that if the petitioners are found entitled for any amount, the same shall be extended to them with all consequential benefits, within a further period of four weeks. If the cases of petitioners are turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to them, within a further period of two weeks. 6. Accordingly, writ petitions stands disposed of. Punit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)