Jharkhand High Court

Julekha Parveen W/O Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 27 November, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                      2025:JHHC:35418


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P. (S) No. 6686 of 2018
                                      ---------

Julekha Parveen W/o Mukhtar Ahmad, resident of Mohalla - Nawa Toli, Kunj Patti, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau.

....Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. & District-

Palamau.

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. & District-

Palamau.

5. Additional Commissioner, Palamau & Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. & District-Palamau. ....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI Ms. Deepika Jojowar, A.C. to S.C.-VI

---------

C.A.V. ON: 29.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 27/11/2025

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

original-petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

For direction upon the respondents to take into consideration the length of service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis from 14.11.1983 as his length of service and accordingly for the purpose of computation of pension and other post retirement benefits and also consequential benefits;

Further, prayer is to quash the memo no. 480 dated 09.06.2017 issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to the extent that service of the petitioner has been regularized from 06.05.2011 and not from the initial date on appointment or from the date from which given regular pay scale.

Further be pleased to grant the benefit of ACP and MACP to the petitioner as admissible to him.

Further prayer is to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of sixth pay revision to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.16 and other consequential benefits.

3. During pendency of this application, the original

2025:JHHC:35418

petitioner namely, Md. Mukhtar Ahmad died and the present

petitioner has been substituted at his place pursuant to the order

passed in I.A. No. 8202 of 2019 vide order passed on 28.01.2020.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the original petitioner

was initially appointed as Jeep Driver in the office of the Deputy

Commissioner-cum-President of the District Rural Development

Authority, Palamau in the year 1983 on ad hoc basis. Thereafter,

there was a recommendation for his regularization and the

Managing Committee of the District Rural Development Authority,

Palamau had given its approval to the proposal for regularization

of the service of the original petitioner. However, his service was

not regularized, on the contrary, he was asked to sign an

agreement which contained reducing the status of the contract

employee and when he refused to sign on the agreement, his

services was terminated.

Thereafter, the original petitioner challenged his

termination from the service by way of filing writ petition bearing

W.P.(S) No. 1044/1998 before the Ranchi Bench of the then Patna

High Court. The writ application was allowed and the order of

termination was quashed vide its order dated 20.09.1999. Since

the order of the Court was not complied with and the petitioner

was not reinstated, he was constraint to file a contempt

application bearing MJC No. 362/ 2000 (R). However, during the

pendency of the contempt application, the petitioner was

reinstated in service and accordingly the contempt application was

2025:JHHC:35418

disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2000. During the pendency of

the contempt application, the petitioner was issued a letter

bearing memo no. 752 dated 05.12.2000; whereby and

whereunder in terms of the orders of the Court, he was appointed

as Jeep Driver in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and he was

further entitled to Dearness Allowance and other allowances.

5. Thereafter, the office of Deputy Commissioner,

Palamau issued a memo no. 321 dated 04.06.2011; whereby and

whereunder the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f.

06.05.2011. From bare perusal of the Annexure-3 to the writ

application, it appears that the reason behind considering the

case of the petitioner for confirmation has been stated as he has

completed the 3 years of satisfactory service. The services of the

petitioner has been taken into consideration w.e.f. 06.12.2000 i.e.,

after issuance of the memo no. 712 dated 05.12.2000. Thereafter,

Memo no. 321 dated 04.06.2011 was withdrawn by the

respondents by issuance of memo no. 192 dated 03.04.2012.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved before this

Court by way of filing W.P.(S) No. 311/2012. The said writ

application was filed with a prayer to quash the memo no.192

dated 03.04.2012. The said writ application was disposed of vide

order dated 02.01.2013 whereby memo no. 192 dated 03.04.2012

was quashed and set aside and so far as the payment of annual

increment since 2000 was concerned, this Court directed the

respondents to dispose of all the representations of the petitioner

2025:JHHC:35418

within six weeks from the date receipt and production of the copy

of order.

Though in compliance of the order dated 02.01.2013,

the confirmation of service of the petitioner was given w.e.f.

06.12.2000 by the respondents; however, Deputy Commissioner,

Palamau passed a reasoned order vide memo no. 1717 dated

04.07.2013; whereby the claim of annual increment since 2000

was rejected.

7. Thereafter, memo no. 1717 dated 04.07.2013 was

again challenged by the petitioner by way of filing W.P.(S) No.

3867/2015 before this Court.

During the pendency of the writ application, the

petitioner retired from the service on 31.01.2017 on completion of

60 years of service. After his retirement, office of the Deputy

Commissioner, Palamau passed a reasoned order vide memo no.

480 dated 09.06.2017; whereby and whereunder annual

increment w.e.f. 06.05.2011 was allowed.

8. Thus, in terms of issuance of letter bearing memo no.

480 dated 09.06.2017, the issue of payment of annual increment

to the petitioner was resolved and the writ application became

infructuous and the same was not pursued and finally the case

was dismissed for default vide an order dated 11.12.2018.

Thereafter, considering the date of appointment i.e.

06.05.2000, the petitioner has been extended the benefit of 6th pay

revision as proved from the fixation of pay chart with effect from

2025:JHHC:35418

01.01.2006 (Annexure-9).

9. From record it appears that the petitioner has been

regularised vide order dated 04.06.2011 from 06.05.2011. The

same thing was also corroborated by the Deputy Commissioner,

establishment, Palamau vide order dated 09.06.2017.

The grievance of the original petitioner is that though

he has been regularized on 06.05.2011, but he has not been

granted pensionary benefit on the ground that he has not

completed 10 years of service which is against the settled

proposition of law that for pensionary benefit, the date of initial

appointment is to be taken into account and accordingly, learned

counsel prays that since the petitioner was entitled for pension

treating his regularisation from the date of initial appointment and

the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by

the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in W.P.(S) No.1255

of 2013.

10. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was

regularized vide order dated 04.06.2011, but in the same letter,

the date of regularisation is indicated as 06.05.2011 and since the

original petitioner has not completed 10 years from the date of

regularisation till the date of superannuation, the original

petitioner was not entitled for any pension.

11. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, it

is clear that the original petitioner-concerned employee has moved

before this Court several times and finally, he was regularised in

2025:JHHC:35418

service and this case is only related with the question of payment

of pension.

As a matter of fact, the issue involved in this writ

application has been deliberated in detail by the Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Deo & Another vs. The State

of Jharkhand & Others [W.P. (S) No.1255 of 2013] and after relying

upon several judgments, the Coordinate Bench has held that

petitioner of that case is entitled for pension. For brevity, para 9 to

13 is extracted hereinbelow:

"9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration in view of the catena of decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Court in its full Bench decision, reported in [2005] 3 JLJR 38/[2005] 3 JCR 9 "Ram Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand" has categorically held that work charge employees are entitled for retiral benefis. The services of the petitioners have to be counted from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of pension and not from the date of regularization as the condition of service of the work charged employees has been made similar to that of temporary Govt. employees, under Rule 1949, they have a right to claim and get such benefit to which a temporary Govt. employees entitled. As the State Government has already decided to provide benefit of pension to the temporary Govt. employees employed under different schemes vide Memo No. Pen 1024/69/11779-F, dated 12th August, 1969. Such scheme having been framed by the State, the respondents cannot deny similar benefits to the work-charged employees or on their death, to their dependants/heirs, their condition of service being similar to that of temporary employees.

10. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision dated 31.8.2010 in case of " Harbans Lal Vrs. The State of Punjab and others"

which has been affirmed by the Apex Court has categorically held:

"Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularized, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularization has not been taken into consideration for determining the qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularized subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and for these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

2025:JHHC:35418

The aforesaid view was further reiterated by this Court in the cases of Joginder Singh, Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh (supra). A conjoint reading of the rules, quoted above and the observations of the Full Bench would reveal that it is by now well established that period of service rendered on daily wage/work charges prior to regularization of services is liable to be counted for the purposes of gratuity and pension."

The consistent view of the judgment is that work charge service rendered before regularization, is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In the instant case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's initial date of appointment after regularization will be the date on which employee takes charge of the post. Once the entire service of a daily wager is to be counted as qualifying service then his date of appointment will relegate back to his initial date of appointment i.e. 05.02.1981 in case of petitioner No.1 and 1.4.1981 in case of petitioner No.2 they cannot be ousted from pension scheme by applying the date of regularization i.e. 22.03.2011. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualifying service for pension.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "S. Sumnyan and Others Vrs. Limi Niri & Ors.", reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791 has held as under:

" We may here also appropriately refer to another decision of this Court in G.P.Doval v. Govt. of U.P.2 wherein this Court held that regularization of the services of a person, whose initial appointment although not in accordance with the prescribed procedure but later on approved by an authority having power and jurisdiction to do so would always relate back to the dates of their initial appointment. Para 13 is reproduced hereinbelow: (SCC p. 341) "13. ... If the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure but later on the appointee is approved making his appointment regular, it is obvious commonsense that in the absence of a contrary rule, the approval which means confirmation by the authority which had the authority, power and jurisdiction to make appointment or recommend for appointment, will relate back to the date on which first appointment is made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. That has not been done in this case."

12. Similarly, this Hon'ble Court in case of " Shakuntla Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors." (W.P.(S)No.1517 of 2008) vide order dated 04.10.2012 taking into consideration the Rules 61 and 63 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as well as Notification No.12928F dated 04.09.1962 was of the considered view that the period served by the Government servant on temporary or officiating basis against the substantive pensionable post shall be counted for the purpose of pension if service is made permanent or such temporary officiating post is converted into a permanent post. The substantive post existing, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the pension after counting the entire period of services even prior to regularization.

13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner counting the service of the petitioner for pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of regularization. The order dated 22.03.2011 memo No.623 is quashed and set aside/modified to that extent."

12. As a matter of fact, way back in the year 1996 itself,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar

V. Union of India and Others reported in (1996) 7 Supreme

Court Cases 113 has held in para 3 as under:

2025:JHHC:35418

"3. Dr Anand Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Union of India, has contended that on 7-3-1980 when the appellant was prematurely retired he had put in 18 ½ years of quasi-permanent service. According to him, to earn pension it was necessary to have a minimum of 10 years of permanent service. It is contended that since the total service of the appellant was in quasi-permanent capacity he was not entitled to the pensionary benefit. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the Government for 18 ½ years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 7-3-1980 after serving the Government for 18 ½ years (more than 10 years of permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be finalised"

13. By now, it is well established that period of service

rendered on daily wage/work-charges prior to regularisation of

service is liable to be counted for the purpose gratuity and

pension. It is also now well-settled that if the first appointment is

made by not following the prescribed procedure but later on, the

appointee is approved making his payment regular, it is obvious

common sense that in the absence of a contrary rule, the approval

which means confirmation by the authority which had the

authority, power and jurisdiction to make appointment or

recommend for appointment will relate back to the date on which

first appointment is made and the entire service will have to be

computed in reckoning the seniority according to length of