Patna High Court
Ram Ekbal Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 86 of 2019
======================================================
Ram Ekbal Mahto S/o Late Kedar Mahto Resident of Barwat Pasrain, Ward
No. 09 P.O.-Barwat Pasrain, P.S.-Bettiah Muffassil, District-West
Champaran.845438.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Patna, Bihar.
2. The Engineer-in Chief Cum Special Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmiki Nagar, West
Champaran, Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Tirhut Canal
Division, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Tirhut Canal
Division No.1, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harish Kumar, GP-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2021
The present writ petition has been filed for
considering the case of the petitioner as a special
case for grant of pensionary benefits taking into
account his long tenure as a daily wage worker
from 02.04.1981 to 30.09.1996.
Patna High Court CWJC No.86 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner had worked as daily
wage pump operator from 02.04.1981 to
30.09.1996, however, in the year 1996, he was
removed from his services as a daily wager,
whereafter he along with other similarly situated
employees had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC
No. 11717 of 1995 for regularization of their
services, which was disposed of by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.1996
with certain observations, however, subsequently,
the respondents had rejected the claim of the
petitioner and others by an order dated
06.07.2005. Nonetheless, subsequently, the
petitioner along with others was appointed in the
Water Resources Department, Balmiki Nagar, by an
office order dated 12.09.2009 issued by the Chief
Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmiki
Nagar, whereupon the petitioner had joined his
services on 15.09.2009 and ultimately, he
superannuated from his services on 31.12.2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.86 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
further submitted that since the petitioner had not
completed 10 years service, he has been denied
pension, hence, it is prayed that a sympathetic
view be taken for the purposes of grant of
pensionary benefits in view of his long tenure as a
daily wager from the year 1981 to the year 1996.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State, Sri Harish Kumar (GP-8), has
submitted that the petitioner had joined the
regular establishment on 15.09.2009 and as per
the letter of the Finance Department dated
31.08.2005, an employee, who has joined the
services of the Government of Bihar on or after
01.09.2005, shall be governed by the new pension
scheme, 2005 and would not be covered by the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. It is thus submitted that
the entitlements under the new pension scheme,
2005, qua the petitioner herein, has already been
processed and the due amount has already been
paid to him. The learned counsel for the
respondent-State has also referred to the letter of
appointment of the petitioner dated 12.09.2009,
Patna High Court CWJC No.86 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
more particularly Clauses 2 and 10 thereof, which
stipulates that firstly, the period pertaining to the
petitioner having worked as a daily wager in the
past shall not be considered as service rendered
under the State Government for any purposes and
secondly, the petitioner would be amenable to the
new pension scheme, notified by the State
Government on 01.09.2005. The learned counsel
for the Respondent-State has further referred to
the resolution of the Finance Department dated
31.08.2005, which prescribes that those
employees, who have been appointed on or after
01.09.2005, shall neither be covered by the
provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 nor by
the previously existing General Provident Fund
Scheme. Lastly, the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State has relied on a judgment
rendered by a full Bench of this Court in the case of
The State of Bihar & Another vs. Bhagwan
Singh (since dead), reported in 2014 (4) PLJR
229, paragraph no. 14 whereof is reproduced
herein below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.86 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
"14. Keeping in view the above
provisions, we are of the opinion that the
service rendered by the petitioner as daily
wage Choukidar under the Executive
Engineer, Tubewell Division, Gaya cannot
be said to be a service for which the
petitioner was paid from the general
revenue of the State Government or the
service rendered on a substantive post in
a permanent establishment. Such service,
although was followed by absorption on
regular establishment, will not qualify for
pension. Therefore, the service rendered
by the petitioner, as daily wage employee
from April 1973 to December 1978, was
not a pensionable service or did not
qualify for pension. On his retirement
from service or his superannuation from
service, he would be entitled to pension
for the service rendered on a substantive
post from 1st January 1979 till the date he
retired from service."
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the materials on record.
Considering the fact that as per the appointment
letter of the petitioner dated 12.09.2009 as also
according to the resolution of the Finance
Department dated 31.08.2005, the provisions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.86 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 are not applicable to
the petitioner and the petitioner is amenable to the
new pension scheme, 2005, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner inasmuch as firstly, his
services are not pensionable and secondly, his past
services rendered as a daily wage employee
cannot be counted as a qualifying period for the
purposes of grant of pension in view of the law laid
down by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Bhagwan Singh (supra) wherein it has
been held that the service rendered by a daily
wage employee is not a pensionable service and
does not qualify for pension.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present
writ petition, hence, the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 01.07.2021
Uploading Date 12.07.2021
Transmission Date NA
