Allowed¶31

Bikash Kumar Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

Pensionary benefits – counting of pre-regularisation daily-wage service

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2026WPC/517/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC, WP(S) No.517 of 2026, Ananda Sen J, 02.02.2026 — daily-wage past service to be counted for pension and gratuity; weightage for prior service at regularisation; Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CA 6309/2017) followed; Deputy Commissioner Dumka Order No. 168 of 2025 (Memo 762 dt. 28.09.2025) set aside; payment within 8 weeks; second round after WP(S) No. 1979 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; impugned Order No. 168 of 2025 (Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025) of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka set aside; respondents directed to count the petitioners' past service for post-retiral benefits including pension and gratuity and to ensure payment within eight weeks. ¶31

Bikash Kumar Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the past service rendered by the petitioners under the respondents prior to their regular appointment in 2013 (when they worked on daily wage basis) must be counted as qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits, notwithstanding that they have not completed 10 years of qualifying service from the date of regular appointment.

¶24

Court's answer

Weightage was given to the petitioners for their past service rendered with the respondents, and after giving such weightage the petitioners qualified and were appointed — establishing that the respondents themselves admit the petitioners worked under them prior to regular appointment.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Following the Supreme Court judgment in Sunder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017) and the admitted fact of prior service, the respondents are directed to consider the period of past service rendered by the petitioners under the respondents for the purpose of post-retiral benefits including pension and gratuity.

¶30

Key takeaways

The impugned Order No. 168 of 2025 contained in Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is set aside.ratio¶31
The respondents are to take steps to ensure payment of pension and other benefits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pensionary benefits — counting of pre-regularisation daily-wage service — Petitioners, former daily-wage employees regularised in 2013 pursuant to a 2009 advertisement, were denied pension on the ground that they had not completed 10 years of qualifying service from the date of regular appointment, the respondents also pleading that weightage already given at appointment precluded further relief. The Court, noting that weightage for past service had in fact been given at appointment (showing the respondents admit prior service), followed the Supreme Court's decision in Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 (para 5), and directed that the period of past service rendered under the respondents be considered for post-retiral benefits including pension and gratuity. The impugned Order No. 168 of 2025 (Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025) of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka was set aside, with payment of pension and other benefits to be ensured within eight weeks. Writ application allowed (Ananda Sen, J.), decided 02.02.2026.

¶1

2026:JHHC:2641

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

WP(S) No.517 of 2026

¶4

¶5

Bikash Kumar Pal, aged about 63 years, son of Shri Gunadhar Pal, resident of Village Lakarjoriya, P.O. Nachangariya, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶6

Umesh Mandal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Badri Mandal, resident of Village Chigalpahari, P.O. Nonihatwari, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶7

Ambika Prasad Mandal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Ram Ratan Mandal, resident of Keshiabahal, P.O. Baskichak, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s). Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s).

¶11

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-II

¶14

02 / 02.02.2026 : Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶15

2. The petitioners prays to quash Order No. 168 of 2025 contained in Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025 whereby their earlier service was not counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.

¶16

3. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioners earlier moved this Court by filing WP(S) No. 1979 of 2025 which was disposed of on 11.06.2025 with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners especially considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017.

¶17

4. The respondents thereafter considering the case of the petitioners, dismissed the claim on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners in 2013 pursuant to the advertisement of 2009 is a

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:2641

¶20

fresh appointment, thus this writ petition was filed.

¶21

5. Admittedly the petitioners were earlier working under the respondents and their payment were made on daily wage basis. Thereafter the advertisement was published in 2009 for appointment for which the petitioners applied and the petitioners were considered for appointment and appointment letter was issued to the petitioners in 2013.

¶22

6. From the impugned order it is clear that weightage was given to the petitioners for their past service which they have rendered with the respondents and after giving such weightage the petitioners qualified and they were appointed.

¶23

7. The aforesaid fact clearly suggest that the respondents also admits that the petitioners worked under the respondents prior to their appointment.

¶24

8. From the impugned order, I also find that the respondents have not granted pension to the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion that they are not qualified to get pension on the ground that they have not completed 10 years of the qualifying service which is mandatory for payment of pension. They have also taken a plea that since some weightage was given at the time of appointment to the petitioners in respect of their past service, no further relief can be granted to the petitioners.

¶25

9. Admittedly the petitioners from the date of their appointment have not completed 10 years which is qualified service for grant of pension but the fact which is undisputed that the petitioners also served with the respondents for some period much prior to that. In the similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others” passed in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 in paragraph 5 has observed and held as follows:

¶26

“5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service

¶27

¶28

2026:JHHC:2641

¶29

rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension.”

¶30

10. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the admitted fact that the petitioners have worked with the respondents prior to the appointment also, I direct the respondents to consider the period of past service rendered by the petitioners under the respondents for the purpose of post retiral benefits including the pension, gratuity etc.

¶31

11. The impugned order No. 168 of 2025 contained in Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is set aside.

¶32

12. The respondents will take steps to ensure payment of pension and other benefits within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶33

13. This writ application is allowed .

¶34

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶35

02.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶36

Uploaded on 06.02.2026

¶37

Bikash Kumar Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Kumar Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Amirullah Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Halima Khatoon Alias Halima Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Kumari @ Mina Kumari Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Its Secretary

Keshwari Manjhi Vs Jharkhand Academic Council, through Its Chairman

Doman Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand