Allowed

Shankar Prasad Keshri and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC19 Dec 2019WPC/461/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ petitions challenging the State of Jharkhand's notification regarding employee absorption, the Court held that pension is a statutory right and not a bounty. The Court reasoned that absorbed employees are entitled to compute past service for pension and consequential benefits based on prior judicial precedents, allowing the petitions to the extent of considering past service for pens

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed to the extent that respondents must compute pensionable service from the date of initial appointment, not the date of absorption, and pay retiral dues.

Shankar Prasad Keshri and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No.277 of 2018

¶3

¶4

I.A. No.5211 of 2018

¶5

Jharkhand State Non-Gazetted Employees Federation, Ranchi

¶6

Harendra Singh, son of Late Ramkeshwar Singh;

¶7

Narendra Kumar Pathak, son of Late Kailash Pathak;

¶8

Devendra Jha, son of Late Kulanand Jha;

¶9

Nawal Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Vijay Kant Choudhary;

¶10

Purushottam Mishra, son of Ram Nagina Mishra;

¶11

Lal Bahadur Singh, son of Late Ramdeo Singh;

¶12

Gauri Shankar Prasad, son of Late Baldeo Prasad;

¶13

Ram Chandra Singh, son of Late Bhagwati Sharan Singh;

¶14

Devendra Pratap Singh, son of Late Shivnath Singh;

¶15

Vinod Kumar Singh, son of Late Tapeshwar Singh;

¶16

Bidyanand Singh, son of Late Bansmochan Singh;

¶17

Lalan Prasad Singh, son of Late Triveni Prasad Singh;

¶18

Ratnakar Jha, son of Late R.R. Jha;

¶19

Shyam Nandan Prasad, son of Late Nathun Prasad;

¶20

Bindeshwar Thakur, son of Late Gopal Thakur;

¶21

Devendra Kumar Jha, son of Late Ram Chandra Jha;

¶22

Awadh Bihari Singh, son of Sri Jawahar Singh;

¶23

Satyendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh;

¶24

… … … … Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

¶27

Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶28

Principal secretary, Department of Finance, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶29

Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Bailey Road, Patna

¶30

Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Boring Road, Patna

¶31

… … … … Respondents

¶32

WITH

¶33

W.P. (S) No.461 of 2018

¶34

Shankar Prasad Keshri, son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad;

¶35

Chittaranjan Prasad Roy, Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Roy;

¶36

Suman Jee, Son of Late Jai Prakash Prasad;

¶37

Surendra Prasad Singh Nirala, Son of Late Damodra Prasad Nirala;

¶38

Pradeep Kumar Singh, Son of Late Suresh Prasad Singh;

¶39

Rajmani Singh, Son of Late Jangbahadur Singh;

¶40

Pramod Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Ram Krishna Singh;

¶41

Avinash Mahtha, Son of Late Raj Kumar Mahtha;

¶42

Chandrasekhar Jha, Son of Late Basudeo Jha;

¶43

Ajay Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Nunu Mani Jha;

¶44

Munna Rajak, son of Sri Hari Rajak;

¶45

Parmanand Singh, Son of Late Tulo Prasad Singh;

¶46

Shambhu Prasad Jaiswal, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal;

¶47

Nunmani Singh, Son of Late Masudan Singh;

¶48

Chintamani Kumar Sahay, Son of Late Bageshwari Sahay;

¶49

Prabhat Kumar Singh, Son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh;

¶50

Arbind Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Subhash Chandra Singh;

¶51

Amrendra Narayan Singh, Son of Sri Pramod Prasad Singh;

¶52

Nageshwar Prasad Bhaiya, Son of Late Sashi Bhushan Bhaiya;

¶53

Basudeo Prasad Yadav, Son of Sri Nand Kishore Yadav;

¶54

Thakur Vijay Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Visheshwar Sinha;

¶55

Bipin Chandra Ghosh, Son of Late Ram Mohan Ghosh;

¶56

Ashok Prasad Singh, Son of Late Nageshwar Prasad Singh;

¶57

Ratneshwar Khan, Son of Sidheshwar Khan;

¶58

-2-

¶59

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶60

Surendra Prasad, Son of Late Seopujan Prasad;

¶61

Sarfraz Alam, Son of Late Md. Fakhruddin;

¶62

Ashok Bhattacharjee, Son of Late Sailaja Kumar Bhattacharjee;

¶63

Sarfaraz Ahmad, Son of Late Basir Ahmad;

¶64

Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari, Son of Late Kedarnath Tiwari;

¶65

Vijay Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Thakur Prasad;

¶66

Jageshwar Choudhary, Son of Bawichan Choudhary;

¶67

Lalji Prasad, Son of Sri Bhagwan Saw;

¶68

Jawed Akahtar, Son of Md. Younus Khan;

¶69

Varun Ranjan, Son of Late Vijay Kumar;

¶70

Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Tabakya Singh;

¶71

Ramashray Mistry, Son of Late Mahadeo Mistry;

¶72

Kanhai Mochi, Son of Sri Tetar Mochi;

¶73

Ramu Mistry, Son of Sri Nand Kumar Mistry;

¶74

Pratap Singh, Son of Late Suraj Singh;

¶75

Rajendra Pandey, Son of Late Brij Bihari Pandey;

¶76

Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, son of Late Sushil Kumar Mukherjee;

¶77

Sudhir Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Chandrashekhar Kumar;

¶78

Madan Mohan Mahto, Son of Late Ram Chandra Mahto;

¶79

… … … … Petitioners

¶80

Versus

¶81

The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary;

¶82

Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi;

¶83

State of Bihar through Principal secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna;

¶84

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, through its Administrator, Patna;

¶85

… … … … Respondents WITH W.P. (S) No.3961 of 2018 & I.A. No.10403 of 2018

¶86

Versus

¶87

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary;

¶88

The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi;

¶89

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Ranchi;

¶90

The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Patna;

¶91

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Patna;

¶92

The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa;

¶93

------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶94

-----For the Petitioners: M/s. Rajiv Ranjan (Sr. Advocate), Indrajit Sinha, Amitabh Prasad, Suraj Singh, Ajay Kumar Sah, Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Raj Bhawani Nandan Sahai, Divya Suman, Satish Kumar, Bhaskar Trivedi, Rahul Kumar, Ranjan Kumar, Advocates

¶95

For the Respondents: M/s. Rupesh Singh (GP-V), Sharad Kaushal, A.C. to A.A.G-II, A.C. to SC(L&C)-1, S.P. Roy,

¶96

¶97

Reserved on: 10.07.2019 Pronounced on: 19.12.2019

¶98

1) In W.P. (S) No.277 of 2018 the petitioners have prayed for the following

¶99

reliefs:-

¶100

(i) For quashing paragraphs IV, VI and VII of Gazette Notification No.603 dated 19.07.2016 of Government of Jharkhand;

¶101

(ii) Further to quash Memo No.570 dated 29.03.2017 issued by Deputy

¶102

-3-

¶103

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶104

Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand

¶105

(iii) Further to hold the decision of the State of Jharkhand to absorb the petitioners and other similarly situated persons from 24.08.2011 illegal and unlawful and to declare that the petitioners be treated to be absorbed in the service of the State of Jharkhand notionally from their initial date of appointment and that they shall be given continuity in service.

¶106

(iv) To allow all benefits to the petitioners including Earned Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Arrears of Salary, Pension revised in terms of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commissions and other benefits admissible in law.

¶107

(v) To declare that the National Pension Scheme is not applicable to the petitioners, as the petitioners are being absorbed in the State of Jharkhand and National Pension Scheme came into force, accordingly, further declare that the petitioners are entitled to eh benefit as are applicable to the employees appointed prior to 01.01.2005.

¶108

Since common prayers have been made in the other two writ petitions and the issues involved are almost similar, all these three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶109

By filing I.A. No.5211 of 2018 in W.P. (S) No.277 of 2018, the petitioners have further prayed for quashing paragraph 6(i) of Gazette Notification No.603 dated 19.07.2016 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand as also for quashing letter No.129 Ranchi, dated 06.02.2018 issued by the same authority.

¶110

In I.A. No.10403 of 2018 filed in W.P. (S) No.3961 of 2018, prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondentsauthorities to re-fix his salary since March, 2017 while calculating and counting his past service from the date of appointment and not from the date of absorption as has been effected in Gazette Notification dated 19.07.2016 and 29.03.2017.

¶111

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶112

2) After bifurcation of the State, two separate States i.e. the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand came into existence from 15.11.2000. By an order of the Government of India dated 14.01.2004, the assets and liabilities of the BSRTC was apportioned between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand in the ratio of 65:35. The BSRTC stood dissolved with effect from 30.06.2004. The employees of BSRTC being allocated the cadre of Jharkhand became the employees of the State of Jharkhand with effect from 01.07.2004. The Ministry of Transport recommended that the employees may be given the benefit of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission if they have been absorbed. The Government of Jharkhand had earlier come with a notification regarding ‘appointment’ of the

¶113

-4-

¶114

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶115

petitioners instead of ‘absorption’. However, later on, the Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, issued a resolution No.273 dated 09.03.2015 stating therein that in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the word “appointment” is hereby deleted and the employees are being considered for “absorption” with all benefits in the light of the resolution No.273 dated 09.03.2015. The Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand thereafter issued Resolution No.480 dated 04.04.2016 regarding absorbing the services with effect from 24.08.2011. Further, vide resolution No.603 dated 19.07.2016, the Department of Transport resolved to give salary of the employees as per the 6^th Pay Revision and in case the salary is less than the employees used to receive as an employee of the BSRTC, then the benefit of pay protection would be given. It was further resolved that since the date of absorption i.e. 24.08.2011, the new pension scheme shall be applied in the case of the absorbed employees. Since the employees/petitioners have been considered to be working in the services of the Government of Jharkhand with effect from 24.08.2011 due to application of new pension scheme, they have been denied the benefit of gratuity as well as pension.

¶116

It is further case of the petitioner that in some of the districts of State of Jharkhand like Chaibasa, Simdega, Seraikella and Ramgarh, the employees of the Transport Corporation were getting the benefits of pay revision and past service in light of resolution No.273 dated 09.03.2015 issued by the Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, but when the employees of other districts raised issue of parity, the same was withdrawn and a direction was issued to make payment of salary in accordance with resolution No.603 dated 19.07.2016. The employees of BSRTC as well as similarly situated persons writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No.7985 of 2005, C.W.J.C. No. 18489 of 2011, C.W.J.C. No. 16460 of 2012 and C.W.J.C. No. 24999 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court for a direction to the respondents for implementation of the recommendations of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1997 and 01.04.2007 respectively. All the writ petitions were heard together and the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to 5^th and 6^th Pay Revision Commissions’ recommendations.

¶117

3) The employees who were absorbed in the State of Jharkhand in view of the bifurcation of the State were denied the legal rights with respect to pay revisions as per the 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission and the benefits of pay differences, continuity of services and past service, whereas the counterpart’s similarly situated employees are enjoying the fruits of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commissions’ benefits. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the nonconsideration of their cases regarding benefits of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commissions

¶118

-5-

¶119

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶120

and also consideration of their cases regarding benefits of pay difference from the date of bifurcation i.e. 01.07.2004 regarding gratuity, unauthorized leave, pension and other benefits, all continuity of services and bonus and hence they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶121

4) Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶122

5) The issues to be decided in this case are as under: -

¶123

(i) Whether the employees of the erstwhile Bihar State Road Transport Corporation who were absorbed by the State of Jharkhand in pursuant to the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are entitled for the benefits of past service for their retiral benefits i.e pension, gratuity, etc?

¶124

(ii) Whether the respondents-State of Jharkhand is justified in withdrawing the benefits of 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission and the difference of pay scale and the past service when the issue has been set at rest by different judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by Hon’ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 7185 of 2005 and other analogous cases decided on 04.06.2015?

¶125

(iii) Whether the petitioners were given benefits of 5^th and 6^th Pay Revision with effect from 01.12.2015?

¶126

ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

¶127

6) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the decision of the State of Jharkhand to absorb the petitioners and other similarly situated persons from 24.08.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. The respondents ought to have absorbed the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment giving them continuity in service as the petitioners are being deprived of their past service. It has been further argued that action of the respondents is wholly contrary to the provisions of Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, as the Government of Jharkhand has varied the service conditions to the disadvantage to the petitioners without any approval of the Central Government. It has further been argued that the benefits were rightly given to the employees in light of resolution No.273 dated 09.03.2015 issued by the Department of Transport, but the same was illegally and arbitrarily withdrawn and ordered for payment of salary in accordance with resolution No.603 dated 11.07.2016. It was also argued that the action of the respondents is contemptuous and amounts to circumventing the Court’s orders. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Elecius Lakra & Ors Vs State of Jharkhand and another [W.P. (S) No. 1693 of 2012] and Bir Kuar Paswan Vs State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 939 of

¶128

-6-

¶129

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶130

2012]

¶131

ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

¶132

7) Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed.

¶133

8) Learned counsel for the State by way of opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that already the direction of this Court has been complied with and the petitioners are getting the salary as other employees of the State of Jharkhand i.e. 6^th Pay Revision Commission. The resolutions of the respondents are totally based on Arbitration Committee’s report of Justice Sagir Ahmed which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The employees of the State Road Transport Corporation, whose services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand, have been duly absorbed and as a sequitur to the absorption, they became at par with the employees of the State Government with effect from 24.08.2011 and no injustice has been done. It was further argued that the respondents-State is bound by the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in which the cut-off date for absorption has been decided as 24.08.2011 and salary is being paid as per the 6^th Pay Revision Commission. The absorption of the petitioners in the State of Jharkhand does not give them an automatic right to claim for the benefit of their past service. It was further argued that the claim of the petitioners regarding absorption were considered in their earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2115 of 2015 and the same stood dismissed observing therein that the adjustment has been made on the basis of the report of Arbitration Committee and the agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand with respect to assets and liabilities of BSRTC. The petitioners cannot expect any windfall merely because of such adjustment in the Transport Department. Attention has been drawn to the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit and it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that several committees were constituted comprising high ranking officials to consider the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court as also the Sagir Ahmed’s Committee’s report, which has been implemented in true letter and spirit. It was further argued that the employees have been absorbed as per their qualifications and they are getting the salary as per 6^th Pay Revision Commission which is more than the employees of the BSRTC and hence the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed.

¶134

FINDINGS

¶135

9) Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in these writ petitions save and except that the past service of the petitioners can be considered for pension for the following facts and reasons: -

¶136

-7-

¶137

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶138

(i) The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (S) No.2115 of 2015 with the same prayer for granting the benefit of pay revision as per 5^th Pay Revision Commission’s report with effect from 01.01.1997 and 6^th Pay Revision Commission’s report with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits and also for payment of arrears of salary and difference of retiral benefits arising out of revision of pay scale, such as, gratuity, leave encashment, etc.

¶139

(ii) This Court after considering the evidence dismissed the writ application observing therein, “........ The petitioners have tended to rely on certain absorptions to further their claim but being employees of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation prior to absorption/adjustment in the Transport Department, their rights do not change overnight. The adjustment has been made on the basis of the report of Arbitration Committee and the agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand with respect to bifurcation of assets and liabilities of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioners cannot expect any wind fall merely because of such adjustment in the Transport Department.”

¶140

10) In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors [Civil Appeal No.13372 of 2015 and the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their pensionary rights and admittedly the past service rendered by the petitioners has to be counted for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits.

¶141

11) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v Mangal Singh and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 has held as under: -

¶142

“34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. .....”

¶143

12) The Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held as under: -

¶144

“31. ... ... pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a value right vesting in a government servant.”

¶145

13) In the case of Poonamal v Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶146

-8-

¶147

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶148

“7. ... ... pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right.”

¶149

14) In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held;

¶150

“25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.”

¶151

15) This Court in the case Elisa Lakra v State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 1693 of 2012] vide order 31.07.2013 held as under: -

¶152

“21. Since few of the petitioners have already retired, the respondents shall compute the pensionable service from the date of initial appointment of such petitioners and not from the date of their absorption and shall pay the retiral dues and other arrears accordingly.

¶153

22. The respondents shall also compute their past services for the purpose of giving ACP benefits / promotion, as the case may be and for their service dues and arrears and pay the same to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

¶154

16) In the case of Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors [W.P. (S) No.939 of 2012] this Court has held;

¶155

“... ... Accordingly, it is held that the condition of denial of past services in calculating pensionary benefits and implementation of new pension scheme as well as denial of their legitimate dues are wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal ... ...

¶156

Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled for computation of the period of their past service for the purpose of ACP benefits/promotion and all other purposes, relevant to the context.”

¶157

17) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand v. Dadan Prasad Singh and others [L.P.A. No.340 of 2013 & analogous cases] the order of learned Single Judge passed in Elecius Lakra (supra) was upheld and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits taking into consideration the past service of the petitioners.

¶158

18) The Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand v Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors in Civil Appeal No.13372 of 2015 while dismissing the appeal of the State of Jharkhand has clearly observed, “ Pension and retiral benefits as also the arrears shall be calculated giving the benefit of High Court judgment,

¶159

-9-

¶160

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶161

within a period of six months.”

¶162

19) Hon’ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases decided on 12.12.2017 taking into consideration the order passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors has held, “In view of the aforesaid, we allow all these appeals, quash the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7702 of 201 and other analogous cases and direct the State of Bihar to grant benefit to each of the appellants herein by counting services as rendered by them in the Boards, Corporations and Public Sector Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the pensionary benefit after counting such service in the Boards or Corporations.”

¶163

20) In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held;

¶164

“46. The term “pension” has been defined in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 60 at p. 879 as thus:

¶165

“However, by modern usage, the ‘pension’ is not restricted to pure gratuities. Thus, it has been held that a pension paid to a governmental employee for long and efficient service is not an emolument the payment of which is barred by a State constitutional provision, but is a deferred portion of the compensation earned for services render. ... A pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payments provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past services, and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expense of living.”

¶166

47. The concept of “pension” has been discussed in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4^th Edn. (Reissue), Vol. 16, Parra 400 as thus:

¶167

“Meaning of ‘pension’: ‘Pension’ means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme or arrangement having its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing them with retirement benefits.... ‘Pension’ does not include:

¶168

(i) a payment to an employee which consists solely of a return of his own contributions, with or without interest;

¶169

(ii) that part of a payment to an employee which is attributable solely to additional voluntary contributions by

¶170

-10-

¶171

W.P. (S) No.277/18 & analogous cases

¶172

that employee made in accordance with the scheme or arrangement;

¶173

(iii) a periodical payment or lump sum, insofar as that payment or lump sum represents compensation under the statutory compensation schemes and is payable under a statutory provision, whether made or passed before, on or after 31-7-1978.”

¶174

48. The concept of “pension” has also been considered in Corpus Juris Secundu, Vol. 70, at p. 423 as thus:

¶175

“A pension is a periodical allowance of money granted by the Government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services, or of loss or injury sustained in the public service. A pension is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants, and it presupposes the continued life of the recipient.”

¶176

49. To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied.”

¶177

21) As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for pension taking into consideration the past service rendered by them. Benefits accruing to the petitioners by virtue of their earlier services be also given to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶178

22) The writ petitions are allowed to the extent above.

¶179

23) In view of the final order passed in the writ petitions, the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

¶180

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J)

¶181

Manoj/-

Shankar Prasad Keshri and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Prasad Keshri and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs Health

Navin Kumar Sinha Vs Rural Dev Dept

Nadeem Kalundia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Singh Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand State Non Gazetted Employees Federation Thr Its Joint Secretary Umesh Kumar And Ors. Vs Transport

Shyama Pada Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary