The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking pensionary benefits reiterated that persons appointed under the scheme of the Union Government cannot be treated as employees, employed substantively under the State Government on account of abolition of post and their subsequent absorption in the State Government department and their continuance in that capacity till superannuation.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondent- authorities to count his past services as an employee of the 1981 Census, conducted by the Government of India, including the period of disengagement from 1984 to 1999.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged under the scheme by the Government of India during the 1981 Census and he worked for 03 years in the Census Department, Government of India. After the disengagement of the petitioner in the year 1984, the petitioner continued to pursue his remedies before the State Government for his adjustment/absorption in the services of the State under the policy of the State Government, for retrenched Census employees. After rendering services of 12 years and 07 months, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2012, as such, it was submitted that the period of disengagement between 1984 to 1999 and the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Census Department between 1981 to 1984 should be counted by the State Government for payment of pensionary benefits.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the petitioner was not employed by the State Government rather he was engaged for a certain work during the 1981 Census by the Union of India and was retrenched in the year 1984. The State Government had come out with a policy decision to adjust/ absorb the retrenched employees of the Census Department. He further submits that under the policy of the State Government, the petitioner was engaged/ adjusted by the respondent- State and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.06.1999.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of Tuntun Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and others, wherein it was held that whether the person appointed under a scheme of Union Government will be treated as employee employed substantively under the State Government, on abolition of scheme led to disengagement, on re-employment by the State Government continued till superannuation, as to whether the period of disengagement will be treated notionally in service in terms of Rule 130(d) of Bihar Pension Rule. Further, it was held that persons appointed under the scheme of the Union Government cannot be treated as employees, employed substantively under the State Government on account of abolition of post and their subsequent absorption in the State Government department and their continuance in that capacity till superannuation. The period of disengagement cannot be treated to be notionally in service by applying Rule 103(d) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
The court after taking into consideration the nature of the appointment of the petitioner and the law laid down, concluded that the period rendered by the petitioner as a Census worker and the period of disengagement/ retrenchment of the petitioner between 1984 to 1999 shall not be counted for pensionary benefits.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed it.
Case Title: Kamal Nayan Singh vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17816 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Mr. Vibhuti Kunu
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
