Bisheshwar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2948 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P. (S) No. 4210 of 2019
                                          ------

          Bisheshwar Paswan                               ...Petitioner(s).
                                     Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

3. Circle Officer, Katkamsandi Block Hazaribagh

4. Deputy Collector, Incharge (General Branch), Hazaribagh

5. District Provident Fund Officer, Hazaribagh

6. Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi... Respondent(s)

------

          CORAM        :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                             Through: Video Conferencing
                                        ------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate.

For the State : Mr Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C) II For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate

10/17.08.2021: Heard the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner save and except the pension. He submits that petitioner was working as a Chowkidar from 1974 and superannuated on 30.06.2001, thus he is entitled to receive pension.

Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar since 1974 but not as a government servant. Only with effect from 01.01.1990, all the Chowkidars were regularized and were made government servant. He submits that on the basis of regularization with effect from 01.01.1990, though it would appear that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service but there is 862 days of break in his service, as a result of which petitioner was not illegible to receive pension. He relies upon the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others versus Ajamber Ahir and another as reported in 2014 (3) JLJR 383.

Considering the submission of the parties, I find that the services of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 01.01.1990. Prior to that date the petitioner was not treated to be a government servant. Petitioner superannuated with effect from 30.06.2001 but there was a break in service of more than 800 days. As per the Judgment referred to above by the State, the pensionable service would be counted with effect from the date the chowkidars were regularized and was treated to be government servant. In this case though the petitioner has apparently put in 10 years of service but the service was not continuous, as there was a break of 862 days in the total period. Because of the break in service the petitioner is not entitled to receive pension as he has not completed 10 years of service. The respondent had thus rejected the claim of the petitioner. Be it noted that it is admitted by the respondents that all other retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no illegality in the action of the respondents in not paying pension, as the petitioner does not have qualifying period of service, which is necessary for grant of pension.

This application, is thus, dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Rajnish/c.p. 2