Bijay Kumar Mandal (B.K. Mandal) vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1853 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bijay Kumar Mandal (B.K. Mandal) vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 January, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No. 4469 of 2012
                 Bijay Kumar Mandal (B.K. Mandal), son of late Matru Prasad Mandal,
                 resident of Qr. No. MH 140A, Ranchi Colony, P.O and P.S. Maithan Dam,
                 District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                                                   ............ Petitioner(s).
                                           Vs.
              1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary,
                 Human Resource Development Department, Project Building, Dhurwa,
                 Ranchi.
              2. The Vinoba Bhawe University, Hazaribagh, through its Registrar, having
                 office at Hazaribagh, P.O and P.S and District- Hazaribagh.
              3. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhawe University, Hazaribagh, having
                 office at Hazaribagh, P.O and P.S and District- Hazaribagh.
              4. The BSK College, Maithon through its Principal, having office at
                 Maithon, P.O. Maithon Dam, P.S. Chirkunda, District- Dhanbad.
                                 ......... Respondent(s)
                                                ------
                        CORAM       :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner(s): M/s Manoj Tandon, Ankita, Neha Bhardwaj and Siddharth Ranjan, Advocates.

For the University: Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorva Singh, AC to SC (Mines)-II

------

08/21.01.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Though the petitioner has made several prayers in this writ petition, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has already superannuated and prayed that the period which the petitioner has spent prior to regularization should be considered for the purpose of calculating his pensionary benefits.

3. After hearing the parties, admittedly this Court finds that the petitioner joined on 14.8.1978 though the post was not sanctioned. After litigation and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petitioner along with others was regularized with effect from 01.08.1993. It is also admitted that since on 01.08.1993 the posts were sanctioned and against those sanctioned posts, the petitioner and others were regularized.

4. The fact that the petitioner was initially working from 14.8.1978 is not disputed. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 106 as well as the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 27 of 2023 (Amrendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others), I am of the opinion that the period, which the petitioner has been working prior to regularization, is liable to be counted for the purpose of pensionery benefit and other benefits to the petitioner.

5. In that view, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to count the period, which the petitioner has been working prior to regularization for the purpose of giving his pensionary benefits as well as other benefits with a further direction to calculate the said benefits and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )