The State of Jharkhand Vs Meena Devi

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

LPA No. 588 of 2023

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, DistrictRanchi

¶6

The Superintending Engineer, Drink Water and Sanitation Circle, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka ... Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Meena Devi, Wife of Late Rajendra Thakur, resident of Harnakundi Road, Kali Mandir, P.O.- Dumka, P.S.- Dumka (T), District- Dumka (Jharkhand).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

The Accountant General, Ranchi, AGO Complex, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Performa Respondent

¶12

---------------

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II For the Respondents : None ---------------

¶15

2^nd January 2024

¶16

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶17

I.A. No. 10386 of 2023

¶18

The appellants have filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 291 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶19

In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 291 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

¶20

I.A. No. 10386 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.

¶21

LPA No. 588 of 2023

¶22

The State of Jharkhand is aggrieved by a direction of the writ Court that the death-cum-post retiral benefits to the wife of the deceased employee who was engaged as work-charge employee shall be paid by the State of Jharkhand.

¶23

The writ Court allowed W.P.(S) No. 3268 of 2020 observing as

¶24

2 L.P.A No.588 of 2023

¶25

under:

¶26

“3. It is admitted case of the parties that the husband of this petitioner namely Rajendra Thakur was appointed in the post of Filter Khalasi under the Drinking Water & Sanitation Department on 5.9.1972 in work charge establishment. It is also admitted case of the petitioner that upon death of her husband, this petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. The death benefit of the husband of this petitioner was not paid on the ground that he was in the work charge establishment and his services were not regularized. It is also admitted that husband of this petitioner worked for more than ten years as it is apparent that he was appointed in September, 1972 and died in August, 1983.

¶27

The issue is whether the heirs of deceased of work charged employee who has completed ten years of service in a particular post is entitled for retiral benefits or not has been set at rest by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & Anr. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2005 (3) JCR 9 (Jhr). In paragraph No. 17.iii it has been held as follows:-

¶28

“17. I, therefore, hold that:

¶29

(i)…… (ii)…..

¶30

(iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their legal heirs/dependent are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family, pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from GPF and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfils the requisite qualifying period to earn pension gratuity and leave encashment.”

¶31

Thus in view of settled principle the husband of this petitioner who was work-charged employee working against the post in regular scale of pay, his heirs i.e this petitioner, is entitled for all death cum retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, pension, GPF & Group Insurance etc. Thus, the remaining death benefits, if any, be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.”

¶33

The only ground on which challenge to the writ Court’s order dated 17^th November 2022 is premised is that late Rajendra Thakur was an employee of the erstwhile State of Bihar.

¶34

Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, the learned State counsel submits that the claim of death-cum-retiral benefits made by the writ petitioner in the year 2020 was a stale claim, inasmuch as, the husband of the writ petitioner had died on 19^th August 1983. On the objection raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand as regards the claim for death-cumretiral benefits being a stale claim, all that we intend to indicate is that such a claim is a statutory right flowing to a government employee and his family. Therefore, it was the duty of the employer to extend all such benefits to the widow of the deceased employee. We may further indicate that family pension to a widow and minor children is by virtue

¶35

3 L.P.A No.588 of 2023

¶36

of status that is to say being a widow and children of the employee and that cannot be denied on the ground that a claim in this regard was made several years after death of the employee. In “S.K. Mastan Bee v. The General Manager, South Central Railway and Another” (2003) 1 SCC 184, the husband of Mastan Bee had died on 21^st November 1969 in harness and she had raised a claim for family pension years thereafter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the plea of delay cannot be a ground to deny the right to family pension.

¶37

Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, the learned State counsel has next contended that in terms of paragraph no. 5 of Eighth Schedule to the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 it was the liability of the State of Bihar to pay pension if the employee was serving under the erstwhile State of Bihar as on the appointed date; on 15^th November 2000. However, the State of Bihar was not made a party and without taking its response the writ Court issued a direction for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to the respondent no. 1 which cannot be countenanced in law.

¶38

To the Court’s query, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, the learned State counsel states that the final division of assets and liabilities between the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand has yet not taken place. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned GA-I submits that this Court has issued directions for payment to the government employee or the employees of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board by the State of Jharkhand/Jharkhand State Electricity Board subject to final adjustment at the time of final allocation of assets and liabilities between both the States.

¶39

In “Akhileshwar Prasad v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Others” 2006 (2) JCR 418 (Jhr.), this Court held as under:

¶40

“From the discussions aforesaid, the following modalities have earlier emerged as a solution to the controversy.

¶41

As per the ratio, laid down by the Jharkhand High Court in the case of “Jhabbu Pandit”, reported in 2002(2) JCR 372 (Jhr). an employee, who retired from the office, which falls within the territory of Jharkhand, is entitled to receive pensionery benefits from the J.S.E.B.;

¶42

As per Patna High Court’s decision in the case of “S.M. Abdul Quadir”, reported in 2003(1) PLJR 708, the equitable formula is that the respective Board should pay the pensionery dues and arrears to the employees, retired/retiring from the areas, now fall under their jurisdiction, subject to final accounting/adjustment of their liabilities; As per the agreement dated 27^th December, 2003, reached between the J.S.E.B. and B.S.E.B., the successor B.S.E.B. and

¶43

4 L.P.A No.588 of 2023

¶44

successor J.S.E.B. will pay the retiral benefits to the employees or erstwhile State Electricity Board, who have retired from the offices, which now fall within their respective territorial jurisdiction, irrespective of their dates of retirement;

¶45

As per the direction of the Supreme Court dated 19^th August, 2004, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 1651 of 2004 and 1652 of 2004, but J.S.E.B. and B.S.E.B. are to act on the basis of the agreement dated 27^th December, 2003; and The J.S.E.B. vide order No. 81, dated 21^st January, 2004 has also given the following directions:

¶46

Henceforth, the payment of retiral benefits of all such employees, who retired died from the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand, even prior to 15.11.2000, will be made by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, disbursing officer will maintain separate accounting of the payments made, so that it can be adjusted at the time of final apportionment of assets and liabilities between the two Boards.

¶47

Having considered all the aspects and noticed the above modalities, we hold that the respective Boards should pay the pensionery dues and arrears to the employees, retired/retiring from the areas, now falling under their jurisdiction, subject to final accounting/adjustment of their liabilities. Such payment will be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in Suit No. 1 of 2005 and subject to final apportionment/adjustment, as may be made in the beginning of the next financial year(s).

¶48

In the present case, all the petitioners having retired from the offices, now falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand, J.S.E.B. will be liable to pay all their retiral benefits and other dues to which they are entitled. We, accordingly, direct the J.S.E.B. and its official to pay the petitioner immediately their ‘current pension’ within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as other dues, as claimed by the individual petitioners in their respective case, are concerned, the J.S.E.B. will decide the claim and will pay the admitted benefits to such petitioner(s), who are so entitled, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On failure, the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the admitted dues from the date(s), the petitioner(s) are so entitled, and also a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the petitioners. All the writ petitions are, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.”

¶49

Having regard to the fact that it was a claim of death-cumretiral benefits, we would decline to interfere with the order dated 17^th November 2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3268 of 2020 with an observation that the payment made by the State of Jharkhand shall be subject to adjustment at the time of final allocation of assets and liabilities between both the states.

¶50

LPA No. 588 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶51

I.A. No. 10387 of 2023 filed for stay is disposed of.

¶52

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶53

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶54

Pankaj-/2

The State of Jharkhand v. Meena Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Jharkhand v. Meena Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabir Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Vs Narmadeshwar Singh

Pintu Hazam Vs M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. through the Chairman Cum Managing Director