Allowed

Ram Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Land Reforms

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2022WPC/2542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders forcing retirement at 58 years instead of 60. Court relied on precedent holding compulsory pre-superannuation retirement illegal. Writ petition allowed with direction for full pay for unworked period and pension revision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Respondents directed to pay full pay and allowances for 1 year 5 months and revise pension benefits.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (S) No. 2542 of 2019

¶4

Ram Pratap Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Shiv Bhajan Singh, R/o Village- Kehoda, P.O.-Dighor, P.S.-Tikri, Dist. Gaya, Bihar … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept. of Land, Reforms, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. –Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Settlement Officer, Headquarter Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

¶8

The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. + P.S- Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶12

Through Video Conferencing

¶13

08/18.02.2022

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

2. Heard Mr. Akash Deep, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.-3.

¶16

3. Heard Ms. Saumya S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶17

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 204-II dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure-2) and Memo No. 100-I dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner has been compelled to superannuate before attaining the age of 60 years, which is the age of superannuation under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a peon in 01.06.1972 in Gaya Settlement Office, Wajirganj Anchal and finally he was transferred to Hazaribagh Settlement Office in the year 1997 and was made to retire from service at the age of 58 years 7 months. He further submits that the impugned communication dated 08.06.2012 was served upon the petitioner disclosing that he would be superannuating from his service from 30.06.2014, though the date of birth of the petitioner as per

¶19

¶20

service book is 01.11.1955 and his appointment was made on 01.06.1972.

¶21

6. While referring to the impugned communication as contained in Annexure-2, the learned counsel submits that the said order has been passed by treating the petitioner to be 18 years of age on his date of appointment i.e., 01.06.1972 irrespective of his recorded date of birth in the service book. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed representation and the same ground was reiterated vide impugned order dated 27.06.2014 as contained in Annexure-4. The learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is fully covered by the judgment passed in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar Dhar reported in 2017 (2) JBCJ 656 (HC) , wherein it has been held that the matter of superannuation of a Government servant cannot be left to the whims of the employer, and in absence of any contrary provision, a regular employee cannot be compulsorily retired prior to attaining the age of his superannuation.

¶22

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014 disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2017 , wherein the petitioner of the said case was also directed to be entitled for full pay and allowances for the remaining period.

¶23

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, while advancing his argument has fairly submitted that the case of the petitioner appears to be squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014 .

¶24

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has been made to superannuate upon completion of 58 years and 7 months of his service by assuming that on the date of appointment i.e., 01.06.1972, the petitioner was 18 years of age, although his date of birth as per the service record is 01.11.1955 and thus, the petitioner has ultimately not been permitted to work for a period of 1 year and 5 months for no fault on his part. Similar issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014 disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2017 , and the facts of

¶25

¶26

the present case, are similar to that of the case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014 disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2017 are quoted as under: -

¶27

“ 3. The issue, whether before attaining the age of 60 years an employee can be made to superannuate or not, has now been conclusively decided by a Full Bench of this Court in “The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar Dhar” reported in 2017 (2) JBCJ 656 (HC). The Full Bench of this Court observed as under:

¶28

20. “This being the position in law, we are in complete agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ganesh Ram’s case (supra), and we hereby, reiterate the law that the matter of superannuation of a Government servant cannot be left to the whims of the employer, and in absence of any contrary provision, a regular employee cannot be compulsorily retired prior to attaining the age of his superannuation, except in the case of misconduct or on the ground of public interest, unsatisfactory service etc., upon compliance of due process of law.”

¶29

4. Finally, it has been held that only upon attaining the age of 60 years, irrespective of the age at which one was inducted in service, the government servant would superannuate from service. In view of decision in “Arun Kumar Dhar”, the impugned order dated 30.04.2013 renders unsustainable.

¶30

5. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner was made to superannuate from service illegally. The impugned order dated 30.04.2013 is quashed. Consequently, the respondents shall pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner for 12 months and his pension and other pensionary benefits shall be revised accordingly.”

¶31

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the preset case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5757/2014 disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2017. Accordingly, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 2 and 4 of the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been compelled to superannuate before attaining the age of 60 years cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are accordingly set-aside.

¶32

¶33

11. Consequently, in view of the fact that the petitioner was made to superannuate from service illegally, the respondents shall pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner for a period of 1 year and 5 months and his pension and other pensionary benefits shall also be revised accordingly.

¶34

12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶35

13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed as not pressed.

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Mukul

Ram Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept of Land Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bina Devi Vs National Institute of Technolo

Basant Kumar Sinha Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. Thr Its Chairman Sail New Delhi

Jay Kant Singh Vs Education

Abha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Department of Social Welfare Women And Child Development

Ram Janam Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shatrughana Pathak Vs State of Jhakhand And Anr.