Mohan Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3809 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      W.P.(S). No. 3044 of 2021
                                            ----------

            Mohan Jha                               .........        Petitioner.
                                             Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Water Resources Department through its Secretary, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

3. Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Multi-Purpose Project, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having his office at Chandil Complex, Swarnrekha Bhawan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur.

                                          ..........      Respondents.
                                  ----------

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK (Through: Video Conferencing) For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijayant Verma, AC to AAG-IV

----------

04/ 06.10.2021 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to pay the consequential monetary benefits accruing on account of grant of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression benefits as well as the arrears accruing on account of revision and fixation of petitioner's pay in 6th and 7th pay revision and consequently the pay of the petitioner may accordingly revised and fixed in the corresponding higher pay-scale.

Further prayer has been made for fixation of pension and payment of other retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment and statutory interest.

3. The factual matrix as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on 05.02.1979 to the post of Junior Engineer and thereafter, after rendering 37 years of satisfactory service, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2017. At the time of his superannuation, the petitioner was posted in the office of the Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Multi-Purpose Project at Adityapur and he was holding the charge of the Estimate Officer. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after his superannuation, he handed over the charge to one Sri Ravikant Choudhary, Assistant

Engineer on 31.12.2017, i.e. the date of his superannuation and as such, there is no dues of the Department lying with the petitioner. Further there is neither any departmental proceeding nor criminal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner, after superannuation, filled-up the pension papers in prescribed format in accordance with the Jharkhand Pension Rules and submitted the same before the office of the Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Multi- Purpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.03.2018 before the Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Multi-Purpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur enclosing the pension form in three copies and charge report in five copies and requested for payment of gratuity and other post-retiral benefits. However, even after passing of more than 6 months from the date of superannuation of the petitioner, he did not receive any communication regarding fixation of pension and payment of pensionary benefits.

4. Since every steps were taken-up by the petitioner for getting the post-retiral benefits and other benefits which accrued to him but the same went in vain, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

5. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that though more than four years have passed from the date of superannuation of the petitioner but the petitioner has been deprived of his legal and constitutional rights of getting the post-retiral benefits. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has fulfilled all the requirement to get the pension and other benefits and all the formalities were already taken-up but still the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and not extending the benefit, as if getting the post-retiral benefits is bounty to the petitioner given by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that after retirement there is no relationship of employer and employee and as such, petitioner is entitled to get the benefits which has been

accrued to him by way of constitutional rights since he has served the Department for more than 37 years.

6. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh, reported in (1982) 2 SCC 314 and submits that Gratuity and PF are retiral benefits, which are governed by various legislative statutes. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Hanuman Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 239 of 2015), disposed of on 29.02.2016.

7. Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State very fairly submits that since counter-affidavit has not been filed, he is not in position to controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits which has accrued to him, the same shall be disbursed within a reasonable time as directed by this Court.

8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated in the year 2017 and after his superannuation, he had taken all steps by filling-up the pension papers and other requirements for getting his legally admissible dues as well as post retiral benefits but the same has not been extended to him by the respondents.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in plethora of judgments has clearly held that payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognized by the applicable rules and regulations which governs the service of the employees of the State.

In the instant case though the petitioner has superannuated

in the year 2017 itself but the respondents have given a deaf ears to the representation of the petitioner and till date has not yet released a single farthing.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 305 and further in case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh (supra) has clearly given a direction to pay the retiral benefits to the employees soon after their retirement. Further, in case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12553/2020], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

"14. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.

15. We accordingly order and direct that in substitution of the interest rate of 12% per annum which has been awarded by the High Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall pay simple interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account of deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days from today. ........................................."

11. Since the petitioner has not even paid the benefits of Assured Career Progression and also the benefits of 6th and 7th PRC, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the same and release all the

benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. As the petitioner has been deprived of getting his legally admissible dues under the head of retiral benefits and not a single farthing has been paid to him, this Court is in full agreement with the legal propositions which has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court and directs the respondents to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears of salary and pension from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment.

12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal/-