Jharkhand High Court
Raj Nandan Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 932 of 2018
----------
Raj Nandan Pandey ......... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Industries, Mines and
Geology Department, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Personnel & A.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. The Director, Directorate of Handloom, Sericulture and Handicrafts,
Industries Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Assistant Director (Sericulture), Ranchi & Palamau Zone, Ranchi.
5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6. The Treasury Officer, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV
For the A.G. : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
----------
09/ 23.08.2021 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his
service with effect from the date of his joining on the ground that he was
appointed by the order of competent Authority on the sanctioned and vacant post
of Lekhapal-sah-Lipik in the office of Resham Sewa Kendra, Purnea on adhoc
basis in the year 1986 and since then he was continuously working on the said
post.
3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner joined his service w.e.f.
14.11.1986 in light of order dated 06.11.1986 as contained in memo No. 4439,
whereby the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis in the
respondent-Department. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by
following due procedure of law and his appointment was made by the competent
authority, which is evident from pay-slip, GPF Form, Last Payment Slip,
Statement of Fixation of Pay (Form-B), issued in the name of petitioner from
respondent-Department. The petitioner was also sent for training to Shri Krishna
Institute of Public Administration, Ranchi by the Directorate of Handloom,
Sericulture and Handicraft for learning Accounting procedure and on successfully
completing his training, he was also issued certificate to that effect. It is the
further case of petitioner that he was always treated as permanent employee and
has been given regular posting, promotion, increment, etc. at par with any other
permanent employee of the State Govt., which is evident from office order dated
30.01.2014, whereby he has been posted as Head Clerk at Directorate of
Handloom, Sericulture and Handicraft. The petitioner worked very diligently to
the satisfaction of his superior authorities and had always given best performance
without any allegation from any corner, which is evident from letter dated
31.12.2014 and 19.02.2016, issued under the signature of Director, Directorate of
Handloom, Sericulture and Handicrafts, Industries Department. Thereafter, on
attaining the age of retirement petitioner superannuated from his post on
31.05.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 03.04.2018 issued
by respondent-Department, he was asked to do necessary compliance and
formalities for release of post retiral dues and thereafter, vide office order dated
30.05.2018 and 03.08.2018, directions were issued for release of GPF and Group
Insurance amount to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 26.09.2018, issued by the
Assistant Director, Sericulture Directorate, Ranchi, the case of the petitioner has
been recommended for fixation of pension.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner inspite of aforesaid order, when the
petitioner did not receive his post retiral benefits, he sought information under
RTI Act with respect to payment of his retiral dues, in response to which the
Public Information Officer of the concerned Department handed over the file
noting to the petitioner, from where it is gathered that the concerned Secretary of
the Department has recommended the case of petitioner for fixation of pension
and release of retiral dues in light of several judicial pronouncements passed by
this Court and also the same was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Minister.
Inspite of the aforesaid recommendations and approval of Hon'ble the
Chief Minister and several representations submitted by the petitioner, the
respondents have not paid post retiral benefits to the petitioner and hence, he has
been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
5. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
vociferously argues that respondents being creature of statutes are bound to act
within the four corners of statutes. Learned counsel submits that the present issue
of the petitioner is no more res integra as the similarly situated employees of the
same department has been given the retiral benefits and their pension was fixed in
compliance of order dated 02.07.2013, passed in W.P.(S). No. 2859/2013; order
dated 04.08.2015 passed in W.P.(S). No. 1855/2015; order dated 07.09.2017
passed in W.P.(S). No. 4141/2017; order dated 15.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C). No.
1366/2017; W.P.(S). No. 3772/2017 by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel
further argues that petitioner had worked day-night continuously for the
respondent-Department and after retirement he has been debarred from pension
which is violative of Article 21 and 300 A of the Constitution. The respondents
being a welfare State under Article 12 of the Constitution, should think about
issues raised by the petitioner and his legitimate prayer for regularization.
Learned counsel further argues at as per the Pension Rule-58, the petitioner is
complying all the three conditions as laid down in the said rule and the similarly
situated employees have already been granted the said benefits by the
respondents.
6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. The contention of Mr.
Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been vehemently
opposed by Mr. Mithilesh Singh. It has been argued that petitioner does not fulfill
the conditions and requirements of Rule-58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and
as such, he is not entitled for the post retiral benefits. Learned counsel further
argues that the case of the petitioner is distinguished from the cases relied upon
by the petitioner on the ground that in those cases, a decision was taken and in the
case of the petitioner, no decision has yet been taken by the respondents.
7. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Accountant General submits that the office of Accountant General deals with the
post retiral benefits of the State Employees, when pension papers, service book
and other necessary documents are sent through proper channel, which has not
been received in the office of Accountant General till date. However, after receipt
of copy of the present writ petition, the respondent-Accountant General vide letter
dated 25.03.2021 has requested the Assistant Director, Sericulture, Ranchi &
Palamau Zone to look into the matter and inform the office of Accountant
General about the action taken at their end and send the necessary documents for
fixation of pension and for extending the other post retiral benefits to the
petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and
upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondent-State is totally misconceived. It is the respondent-
State, who is responsible for not extending the benefits of post retiral dues to the
petitioner. From noting at Annexure-R/7 (page 50) of the Rejoinder, which has
been obtained through RTI, it is reflected that even the Hon'ble Chief Minister
has approved and he is in agreement with the views of other Officers as well as
the Judgment of this Court, affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and has
recommended the case of the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits as his case
is squarely covered by the cases of other similarly persons, who have been
extended the same benefits. The issue involved in this writ application is no more
res integra. It is the respondents who have taken work from the petitioner for last
32 years and as such, after retirement, petitioner is entitled for the benefits which
has been extended to other similarly situated persons. This Court is in agreement
with the views expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has been
affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. As s sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal
propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent-State to
pass reasoned order taking into consideration the recommendation of Hon'ble the
Chief Minister as well as observations and directions in plethora of judgments
passed by this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court. After taking the
decisions, the respondent-State shall send the required documents to the Office of
Accountant General for further processing. Pension and other benefits shall be
extended to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks thereafter. Let it
be made clear that the entire benefits shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from
the date it has fallen due till final payment is made.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application
stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Kunal/-
