Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kishor Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1358 of 2022
Nand Kishor Ram ... ... Petitioner
- VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Development
Department, REO, Jharkhand
2. The Superintending Engineer, REO, Works Division, Garhwa
3. The Executive Engineer, REO Works Division, Garhwa
4. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents Ms. Archana Kumari, AC to AAG-V
For the Accountant General: Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
07/01.05.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner is claiming gratuity and pension on account of his
retirement from the service on 31.03.2021.
3. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a daily
wage employee on 25.07.1987. His services was thereafter converted into
the establishment of work charge employee. Thereafter, on and from
29.08.2005, the service of the petitioner was regularized and was
continuously working in the regular establishment and thereafter retired on
31.03.2021. After his retirement, some of the retiral benefits were extended
to him but till date amount of gratuity and pensionary benefits have not
been extended to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has
knocked door of this Court.
4. Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel representing petitioner
vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits and also
gratuity and pension. Though the amount of retiral benefits have been paid
but gratuity and pension has not been paid to him till date. The grounds
which are not tenable in the eyes of law, has been used as a weapon to
reject the claim. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Resolution
of the State Government, particularly of the Finance Department dated
17.07.2023 and submits that the State itself has taken a Resolution to
consider service of the work charged employee from the date they entered
into the establishment of work charge. In the case of the petitioner, he
entered into the service on 25.07.1987 and is thus entitled for entire
benefits including gratuity and pension, which has been given to other
similarly situated persons.
5. Ms. Archana Kumari, AC to learned AAG-V opposing contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner argues that since petitioner was work
charge employee, he is not entitled for the benefits from the said date
rather he is entitled for the benefits from the date of regularization i.e.
29.08.2005. As per entitlement, entire benefits have already been extended
to the petitioner. There is no merits and the writ petition is fit to be
dismissed.
6. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel representing Accountant General
fairly submits that the office of the Accountant General acts as per
recommendation of the State. No recommendation has been received for
grant of gratuity and pension for the periods petitioner worked as work
charge employee rather recommendation has been received taking into
consideration date of regularization of his service from 29.08.2005.
7. Having heard rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that admittedly petitioner is entitled for the entire benefits
taking into consideration his entry into service as a work charge employee
from 25.07.1987. The respondents have considered the date of
regularization i.e. 25.08.2005 for extending the benefits, is not at all in
accordance with law. As per the Finance Department's Resolution dated
17.07.2023, petitioner is entitled for all the benefits from the date of entry
into the work charge establishment i.e. 25.07.1987. Even the case of
similarly situated persons have already been considered and they have
already been granted benefits. It is not open for the respondents to take a
different stand. There cannot be discrimination amongst the persons of the
same class. There has to be rationale classification.
8. In view of aforesaid logical sequitur, guidelines, rules and judgment
pronounced by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, I, hereby, direct
the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to recommend case of the petitioner for payment
of gratuity and pension from the initial date of appointment in work charge
establishment. After receipt of such recommendation, the Accountant
General shall fix pension and other benefits and shall release the same, if
not yet been released. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period
of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this
order.
9. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ
petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
