Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak vs Mr. A. Allam on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6605 of 2017
With
W.P. (S) No. 7290 of 2016
With
W.P. (S) No. 772 of 2018
-----------
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
I.A. No. 2727 of 2021 [In W.P.(S) No. 7290 of 2016]
06/09.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that during pendency of the instant writ petition,
petitioner no. 1 namely Deo Narayan Saw died and as such, I.A. No.
2727 of 2021 has been filed in W.P.(S) No. 7290 of 2016 praying therein
to substitute name of his legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the
said petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not object
to the prayer.
In the circumstances, I.A. No. 2727 of 2021 stands allowed.
Petitioner is directed to do the needful.
W.P. (S) No. 6605 of 2017
With
W.P. (S) No. 7290 of 2016
With
W.P. (S) No. 772 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that it is specific case of the petitioners that they
RC
are entitled for pensionary benefits. Their initial appointments, though as
a daily wager, were made in the year 1983 - 84. Instead of passing
orders for their regularization, services of the petitioners were considered
by the respondents for fresh appointment against the fresh advertisement.
Learned counsel further argues that the past services of the petitioners
cannot be wiped out and the same has to be considered for pensionary
benefits. Learned counsel heavily placed reliance on the Judgments
passed in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and
Another reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430 as also in the case of Harbans
Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and others reported in 2010 SCC OnLine P
& H 8181.
Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
respondents Birsa Agricultural University vehemently opposes
contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that
petitioners were never appointed as a daily wagers. Their services were
never regularized. It was only when they appeared against the
Advertisement No. 01/2008, their cases were considered for fresh
appointment against the fresh vacancies. Since they have not put on ten
years' of regular services, their cases were rightly not considered for
pensionary benefits. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that the Circular
of the University as well as of the State do not permit pensionary
benefits in such cases.
Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents has not
come up with the relevant Circulars which came in the way of extending
pensionary benefits to the petitioner and prays for some time to bring the
same on record.
As prayed, put up this case for further hearing on 07.09.2021.
The parties are directed to come up with relevant circulars/ guidelines, if
any.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
