Jharkhand High Court
Govind Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 11 November, 2024
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2024
1. Govind Mandal
2. Sukhdeo Rao
3. Prabir Kumar Dutta
4. Kailash Chandra Goswami
5. Rekha Kunui .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Reforms,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka.
8. The Circle Officer, Block- Mahagama, Godda.
9. The Circle Officer, Block- Narayanpur, Jamtara.
10. The Circle Officer, Block- Ranishwar, Dumka.
11. The Circle Officer, Block- Saraiyahat, Dumka.
12. The Circle Officer, Block- Jamtara, Jamtara.
13. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
.... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Prasad Ram, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II
-----
9/ 11.11.2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for
direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for grant of pension
under old pension scheme, counting their services from the date of their
initial appointments.
3. The background of the case is that the petitioners were
appointed in Census Department in the year 1991 and posted within the
territory which now falls under the State of Jharkhand. Having found the
services of the petitioners satisfactory, the Government of Jharkhand
decided to regularize the services of the employees working in Census
Department including the petitioners and to that effect, a notification
contained in memo no. 5021 dated 03.11.2004 has been issued, by which a
total of 602 employees including the petitioners were regularized. It is
specific case of the petitioners that they were regularized by the order dated
03.11.2004, but they were given posting in the year 2010-12 and
considering their date of posting after regularization / adjustment in
different departments, the petitioners were not extended the benefit of
pension under old pension scheme, as they have not served the minimum
period of ten years for getting pension.
4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Ranjan
Prasad Ram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not the fresh appointees, rather, they were adjusted in
different departments of the State Government after regularization. Learned
senior counsel further submits that actually the petitioners were appointed in
the year 1991 and they were regularized with effect from 03.11.2004 and
hence, they were entitled for pensionary benefits under the old pension
scheme. Learned senior counsel further submits that treating the petitioners
to be appointed upon their posting in different departments of the State from
the year 2010-12 is not tenable and it is respondent-authorities which
delayed the matter of posting of the petitioners and there is no fault on the
part of the petitioners and hence, they are entitled for pensionery benefits
under the old pension scheme. In support of his contention, learned senior
counsel refers the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1869 of
2017, wherein the selection process was started in the year 2003 and joining
letters were given in the year 2005 and in such circumstances, the Court has
been pleased to hold that the employee is entitled for old pension scheme.
Learned senior counsel also refers the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in Civil Appeal No. 10788 of 2016 wherein it was held that
seniority will be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from
the date of confirmation and posting. Learned senior counsel fairly submits
that the petitioners are not claiming any salary of the past services, rather,
they are claiming pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme
counting the past services and hence, a direction be given to the respondents
to consider their cases for pension.
5. Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that since the petitioners have not completed ten years
of service from the date of adjustment / regularization, they are not entitled
for pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme i.e. prior to 2004.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are fresh appointees and it is
not a case of adjustment or regularization. Justifying the stand of the
respondents, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order as the petitioners have not rendered the minimum ten years of
service in regular establishment for getting pensionery benefits.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar,
this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration.
Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1991. They
have rendered more than 30 years of service. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioners were regularized with effect from 3.11.2004. The past services
rendered by the petitioners cannot be ignored even if their appointment was
on adhoc basis.
7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 509, wherein it has been held that
seniority is to be counted from the date of initial appointment even on adhoc
basis.
8. Considering the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as above, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1869 of 2017 (Lalit Kumar Jha &
Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors) was of the view that the past
services rendered by the petitioners on adhoc establishment cannot be
ignored.
9. In the present case, the respondent-State has also issued a
notification circulated to all Commissioners vide memo no. 2562 dated
5.6.2006 in which it has been specifically observed that appointment was
not a fresh appointment, rather, it was a case of adjustment / regularization.
The petitioners are not claiming any salary for the said period nor they are
claiming seniority. Since their services have already been adjusted and
regularized, they are entitled for consideration of the past services for grant
of pensionery benefits under the old pension scheme, i.e. prior to 2004.
10. In view of the aforesaid background, the respondents are
directed to fix the pension of the petitioners under the old pension scheme
as existing prior to 2004 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
