Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Nath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:21029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2020
---
1. Surendra Nath Mahto, aged about 61 years, son of Late
Harinath Mahto, resident of Village Edeldih, P.O.
Janampiri, P.5. Tamar, District Ranchi,
2. Somwari Devi, Aged about:- 67 Years w/o Late
Ghanshayam Mahto, R/o-Binsaidih, P.O.-Janampiri, P.S.
Tamar, District-Ranchi.
3. Deonath Mahto, aged about 70 years, son of Late Dhirjo
Mahto, resident of Village Chedeyadih, P.O. Janampiri, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi.
4. Jaisingh Mahto, aged about 66 years, son of Late Dhirja
Mahto, resident of Village Chedeyadih, P.O. Janampiri, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi.
5. Krishna Mahto, aged about 79 years, son of Late Giriya
Mahto, resident of Village Dobhadih, P.O. Barenda, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi.
6. Prahlad Mahto, aged about 79 years, son of Late Lahru
Mahto, resident of Village Salukdih, P.O. Situ, P.S.
Ichagarh, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.
7. Shankar Mahto, aged about 73 years, son of Late
Gurucharan Mahto, resident of Village Salukdih, P.O. Situ,
P.S. Ichagarh, District Seralkella-Kharsawan.
8. Hari Mahto, aged about 69 years, son of Late Karam Singh
Mahto, resident of Village Serengdih, P.O. Chokahatu, P.S.
Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
9. Munsi Babu, aged abcut 69 years, son of Late Madhav
Singh Munda, resident of Village Bandhdih, P.O.
Chokahatu, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
10. Ghasu Mahto, aged about 75 years, son of Late Karam
Mahto, resident of Village Darmada, P.O. Salgadih, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi
11. Mohim Mahto, aged about 69 years, son of Late Vijay
Mahto, resident of Village Jethadih, P.O. Amlesha, P.S.
Tamar, District Ranchi
12. Madhav Mahto, aged about 63 years, son of Mohan
Mahto, resident of Village Domadih, P.O. Edramhatu, P.S,
Sonahatu, District Ranchi,
13. Parsuram Mahto, aged about 67 years, son of Late
Abhimanyu Mahto, resident of Village Badia, P.O. Baredih,
P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi.
14. Gunjaram Mahto, aged about 77 years, son of Late Ranjit
Mahto, resident of Village Jojopiridih, P.O. Landupdih, P.S.
Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
15. Janbi Devi, Aged about 59 years W/O Late Bhushan
Singh Munda, R/O-Village-Jamdih, Ulilohar, P.O.-Baredih,
P.S.-Tamar, District-Ranchi
16. Nirola Devi, Aged about 74, W/O Late Jituram Mahto,
R/O-Village of VTC, Bansiya, P.O.-Bansiya, P.S. Silli, Dist.:
Ranchi
17. Muchiram Mahto, aged about 71 years, son of Late
Sohrai Mahto, resident of Village Dubla, P.O. Salnadih, P.S.
2025:JHHC:21029
Tamar, District Ranchi
18. Umacharan Mahto, aged about 68 years, son of Late
Manmohan Mahto, resident of Village Sarmali, P.O.
Janumpiri, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi
...Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali,
District Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division (Canal), Irrigation
Department, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
...Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V
---
C.A.V. ON 18.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 30/07/2025
The instant writ application has been preferred by
the Petitioners for a direction upon the respondents to
consider the Petitioners' eligibility for pensionary benefits and
to grant them pension, w.e.f. the date of superannuation, in
view of the submissions that the petitioners have discharged
regular temporary services with the respondents, and in view
of the provisions of Pension Rules.
2. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
The Petitioners were appointed on different vacant and
sanctioned posts under the Respondent-Department and
thereafter were placed in the Revenue Division, Ranchi, on
posts like Periodical Rent Collector, Clerk and Amin, in the
1980s. The Petitioners were appointed vide different office
orders issued from the office of Revenue Division, Ranchi,
wherein it has been specified that they were granted specific
scale and dearness allowance.
Thereafter, the services of the Petitioners have been
extended regularly and they rendered continuous services
2025:JHHC:21029
with the Respondent-Authorities. The Petitioners after
retirement had preferred representations before the
respondent authorities to consider their case for entitlement
of pension, but all in vain.
The Petitioners who rendered more than 30 years of
services were neither regularized and, on that count, nor
their services for pensionary benefits were considered. Hence,
this writ application.
3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the
following petitioners expired: Ghanshyam Mahto (Petitioner
No. 2), Bhushan Singh Munda (Petitioner No. 15) and
Jituram Mahto (Petitioner No. 16). They have been
substituted by their legal representatives, namely Somwari
Devi (as Petitioner No. 2), Janbi Devi (as Petitioner No. 15)
and Nirola Devi (as Petitioner No. 16) respectively and the
matter now proceeds at their instance.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the
Petitioners were appointed on temporary basis but
continuously worked till retirement and they were paid salary
from the regular Establishment Head and not from any
contingency or scheme-based budget. The services of the
Petitioners were extended from time to time without any
break, and thus, they ought to be given pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a
certificate issued by the Respondent no.4, i.e., the Deputy
Collector, Revenue Division (Canal), Ranchi, dated
16.07.2024 (Annexure-5), which clearly acknowledges that
the Petitioners have served continuously for over 15 years. It
was pointed out that this certificate has neither been
withdrawn nor challenged by the Respondents and, therefore,
must be treated as a binding admission on the part of the
State.
2025:JHHC:21029
Further, learned counsel has placed reliance on Rule
59 of the Bihar Pension Rules (as adopted by the State of
Jharkhand), read with Memo No. 11779 F., dated
12.08.1969, and Memo No. 401 F., dated 13.01.1975, to
assert that temporary employees, who have rendered more
than 15 years of continuous service are eligible for pension
and gratuity benefits.
This Court vide order on 03.07.2023 called the
petitioners to submit any document that will show that they
had been continuously working for the respondents.
Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Supplementary
Affidavit dated 21.11.2024, annexing a letter dated
16.07.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by the Deputy Collector,
Revenue Division (Canal), Irrigation Department, Doranda,
Ranchi, i.e., respondent no.4, certifying that the Petitioners
had worked continuously for more than twenty years on a
temporary basis under the respondent department.
Relying upon aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel
reiterated the prayer for grant of pensionary benefits.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the
Petitioners were appointed as temporary employees and their
services were not regularized at any point of time. It was
contended that since the Petitioners continued to serve on a
temporary basis, their services do not qualify under the
statutory pension rules and hence, they are not entitled to
any pensionary benefits.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners
were essentially seasonal employees engaged on need-basis
in the Revenue Division, and their service conditions did not
confer upon them any vested right to claim pension or
gratuity. The Respondents took the stand that mere
2025:JHHC:21029
continuation in service, without formal regularization, cannot
create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners.
Further, he submitted that the services rendered by
the Petitioners were not in a regular capacity and that they
were not appointed through a competitive or formal
recruitment process as per applicable rules.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the records, the material aspects that emerge
are that the Petitioners were appointed on various sanctioned
vacant posts under the Respondent-Department in the 1980s
and were placed in the Revenue Division, Ranchi, on
positions such as Periodical Rent Collector, Clerk and Amin.
The appointment orders, issued by the office of Revenue
Division, Ranchi, provided specific pay scales and dearness
allowance, clearly reflecting that appointments were made
against vacant and sanctioned posts. Though some office
orders described the appointments as "temporary," the
services of the petitioners were continuously extended and
they rendered uninterrupted service until their
superannuation.
It is well settled that in service jurisprudence,
particularly in cases of Class-IV employees or temporary
appointees, the records pertaining to appointments, salary
slips, attendance registers, etc., are in the custody of the
employer. It is not expected from such employees to retain
decades-old service records. Under such circumstances, once
the petitioners have made a positive assertion regarding
continuity of service, the burden shifts on the employer to
rebut the same by producing records, which they have failed
to do in the present case.
This legal position is reinforced by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of Gujarat (Fisheries
2025:JHHC:21029
Terminal Dept.) v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda1,
wherein at paragraph 17 it was held:
"17. Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this
Court, the evidence produced by the appellant has not been
consistent. The appellant claims that the respondent did not work for
240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily-wage
basis. So it is obvious, as this Court pointed out in the above case
that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official
documents, muster rolls, etc. in connection with his service. He has
come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof
shifts to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240
days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous
service."
(emphasis supplied)
7. The case of the Petitioners in the present matter is
on a better footing because they have been able to
corroborate their pleadings and averments with production of
a document that has been issued by the respondent no.4
himself, who is the contesting party. Under such
circumstances, where the question is about the proof of
continuity of services and the petitioners/employees have
made positive statement that they were continuously
working, the onus was upon the respondents to produce the
document to show that they were not, if they had to
successfully dispute such a statement.
8. The question that now arises is, "whether the
petitioners, being temporary employees who served
continuously for more than 30 years, are entitled to pensionary
benefits under the applicable rules?"
With regard to this question, it would be profitable to
refer to Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules (adopted by the
State of Jharkhand) which lays down the enabling provisions
for treating temporary services as pensionable in certain
circumstances. The relevant portion of Rule 59 is being
extracted hereinbelow:
"59. The Provincial Government...
3. The State Government after careful consideration have,
therefore, been pleased to decide that, if the service of the
temporary or officiating Government servant who is not
(2010) 1 SCC 47
2025:JHHC:21029
confirmed in any post is continuous and is more than 15
years, it will be considered as pensionable under rule 59 of
the Bihar Pension Rules.
4. These orders will be applicable to Government servants
retiring on or after 12 August, 1969. ["Vide Memo No. Pen
1024/69/11779 F., dated 12-8-1969...]"
9. The above-mentioned Rule 59 has been further
supplemented by the decision of the Govt. published vide memo
no.11779-E, dated 12.08.1969, wherein, it has been stated that
those employees who have been working for more than fifteen
(15) years and were taken in temporary engagement, will be
entitled to the benefits of pension. This has been declared, by
the State Govt. utilizing its power under Rule 59 of the
Jharkhand Pension Rules.
It is significant to note that no counter affidavit was
filed by the respondents disputing the contents of the
Supplementary Affidavit or the authenticity of Annexure-5
which acknowledges more than 15 years of continuous service.
On the contrary, the said respondent no.4 is the same
authority who had sworn the counter affidavit dated
15.09.2020, wherein it was stated that the Petitioners were
seasonal employees and hence were not entitled to continuity
in service.
The contradiction between the earlier stand taken by
the respondents in the affidavit and the subsequently issued
certificate by the same officer, clearly raises serious questions
on the stand of the respondents.
10. Further, in respect of Survey and Settlement
employees, Rule 73 of the Pension Rules stipulates that such
service will not count for pension unless it is followed by
qualifying service. Rule 73 is quoted as hereunder:-
"73. Service in the Survey and Settlement Departments does not
count unless it is followed, without interruption, by qualifying
service.
Note. Deputy Collectors and similar gazetted Government servants
when not specially employed for temporary work, are not affected
2025:JHHC:21029
by this rule as they count service independently of the particular
department to which they happen for the time to be attached.
State Government decisions:-
*विषय - वबहार पेंशन वनयमािली के वनयम 73 के अन्तर्गत सिे एंड सेटलमेंट
कमगचाररयों की अस्थायी सेिा को पेंशन प्रदायी घोवषत करने के सम्बन्ध में।
सिे एंड सेटलमेंट के कमगचारी 15 िषों से अवधक सेिा करने के पश्चात् अस्थायी
रूप में सेिावनिृत्त हो जाते हैं, परन्तु वबहार पेंशन वनयमािली के वनयम 73 के
ितगमान उपबन्धों के अनुसार उन्हें पेंशन/ग्रेच्युटी की सुविधा नहीं वमलती है।
फलस्िरूप, जीिन के अंवतम अिवध में कमगचाररयों को काफी आर्थथक संकट का
सामना करना पड़ता है।
2. सािधानीपूिगक विचार करने के पश्चात् सरकार ने यह वनर्गय वलया है कक सिे
एंड सेटलमेंट के जो अस्थायी कमगचारी 15 िषों से अवधक सेिा की अिवध के
पश्चात् सेिावनिृत्त हो जाते हैं, तो वित्त विभार् के पररपत्र संख्या पेन-1024/69-
11779 वि० कदनांक 12-08-1969 के अनुसार पेंशन/ग्रेच्युटी के हकदार होंर्े, बशते
कक िे वनम्ांककत शतों को पूरा करते हों:
(i) उनकी वनयुवि सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर स्िीकृ त पद पर हुई हो
और सेिा वनयवमत एिं लर्ातार हो।
(ii) सेिावनिृवत्त के समय तक उनके िेतन का भुर्तान वनयवमत स्थापना
िेतन विपत्र के द्वारा ककया र्या हो।
उनकी सेिा आकवस्मक एिं मौसमी (Casual and Seasonal) नहीं
हो।
3. यह आदेश 01-01-1973 से प्रभािकारी होर्ा। सिे एंड सेटलमेंट कायागलय के
जो अस्थायी कमगचारी 01-01-1973 या उसके बाद की वतवथ को 15 िषग से
अवधक अिवध को लर्ातार एिं वनयवमत सेिा करने के उपरान्त वनिृत्त हैं या होंर्े,
उपरोि सुविधा प्राप्त होर्ी।
4. सम्बवन्धत वनयम का संशोधन बाद में ककया जाएर्ा। [*Vide F.D. Memo No.
P.C.-11-46/74-401 F. dated 13.01.1975.]..."
11. At this point, it is relevant to examine whether the
nature of petitioners' employment could be categorized as
"casual" and "seasonal" as claimed by the respondents. In
this regard, authoritative legal definitions are instructive.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "casual employment"
is defined as:
"Work that is occasional, irregular, or for a short time - often
associated with day labor."2
Similarly, "seasonal employment" refers to:
"An occupation possible only during limited parts of the year,
such as summer-camp counselor, a baseball-park vendor,or a
shopping-mall Santa."3
Applying the above definitions to the present
case, this Court finds that the employment of petitioners
Black's Law Dictionary, 12th edn., p. 663 - definition of "Casual Employment".
Black's Law Dictionary, 12th edn., p. 663 - definition of "Seasonal Employment".
2025:JHHC:21029
was neither casual nor seasonal. Rather, they were
continuously posted in sanctioned posts and were paid
from the regular establishment head. Their service tenure,
spanning more than 15 years, contradicts the very
essence of "casual" or "seasonal" work.
Therefore, the nature of their service cannot be
equated with either casual or seasonal employment and
must be treated as long-term continuous engagement,
qualifying for consideration under Rule 59 of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950.
12. Moreover, to ascertain whether the petitioners
satisfy the requirement of having rendered more than 15
years of continuous service, an essential criterion for
eligibility under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950
read with Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779 F. dated
12.08.1969, a comparative chart of their service durations
is noted below. The same is based on the service records
issued by the Respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 208 dated
16.07.2024, annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit on
behalf of the petitioners (Annexure 5):
क्र.सं . कममचारी का नाम पदनाम कायम काल
1 श्री शंकर महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1969 से 2005
2 श्री माधव महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1978 से 2014
3 श्री परशुराम महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1982 से 2005
4 श्री हरर महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1971 से 2005
5 श्री मुंशी बाबू सा० सं ग्राहक 1981 से 2005
6 श्री उमाचरण महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1973 से 2005
7 स्व० भू षण ससं ह मुंडा सा० सं ग्राहक 1969 से 2005
8 श्री दे वनाथ महतो सा० मुहररम र 1982 से 2005
9 श्री मोसहम महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1969 से 2005
10 श्री प्रहलाद महतो सा० अमीन 1970 से 2005
11 श्री घासु महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1972 से 2005
12 श्री मुचीराम महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1972 से 2005
13 श्री जयससं ह महतो सा० मुहररम र 1981 से 2005
14 स्व० सजतु महतो सा० सं ग्राहक 1969 से 2005
15 श्री कृष्णा महतो सा० अमीन 1969 से 2005
16 स्व० धनश्याम महतो सा० मुहररम र 1969 से 2005
17 श्री सु रेन्द्रनाथ महतो सा० मुहररम र 1982 से 2014
2025:JHHC:21029
A perusal of the above chart clearly
demonstrates that each of the petitioners has completed
well beyond 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned
posts without break and their salaries were paid from the
regular establishment head. The continuity and regularity
of service stand admitted through the certificate issued by
respondent no.4 and are not controverted by any
documentary material on behalf of the respondents.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds
that though the respondents have taken reference of Rule
73 in their Counter Affidavit and they have stated that the
employment of the petitioners was seasonal, they were not
able to substantiate this position; rather the petitioners
have been able to prove that they were working
continuously. The petitioners were engaged on temporary
basis and they were paid salary and there is continuity.
Consequently, this Court finds that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Rule 59 of the
Jharkhand Pension Rules, read with Government
Resolutions dated 12.08.1969 and 13.01.1975.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to consider the services of the
petitioners as qualifying for pension and to extend all
consequential pensionary benefits, including arrears of
pension and gratuity, to the petitioners, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this judgment.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jk
A.F.R
