The petition sought reckoning of pre-absorption work-charged service for pension calculation. The court noted a conflict between the Full Bench reference and Supreme Court precedent but disposed of the petition without deciding the substantive issue.
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court for appropriate reliefs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
00000IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21299 of 2018
======================================================
Ravindra Ray Son of Late Kailash Ray Resident of village Mehsaul, P.S.Runni Saidpur, Distt-Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER
17 21-06-2022
The present writ petition has been filed for treating the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the work-charge establishment prior to his absorption in regular establishment on 1.12.2006, for the purposes of calculation of his pension and other retiral dues.
It is submitted that in the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21299 of 2018(17) dt.21-06-2022 2/5
petitioner, the period of service, which has been counted for the purposes of calculation of pensionary benefits, has been taken to be the period starting from the date of absorption i.e. 1.12.2006 till his superannuation on 31.1.2014, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner herein.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 wherein Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retiral Benefits Rules 1961 has been read down and it has been held that services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work-charge employees/ contingency fund paid employees/ non- pensionable establishment employees, shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21299 of 2018(17) dt.21-06-2022 3/5
Respondent-State has referred to a judgment dated 2.9.2019, rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Amrika Devi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10036 of 2012) and other analogous cases wherein the learned Full Bench of this Court has held in paragraph no. 46 as
follows:-
"46. The reference, thus, is answered in the following terms:
(a) With respect to addition of the number of years of service rendered in a work-charged tenure to the service under regular establishment, for the purposes of making the service of such regular employees pensionable, there is practically no substantial difference in the pronouncements of the two Division Benches in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra). (b) For the purposes of pension, only such period from the work-charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee which has been regularized to qualify him for pension. (c) While adding such period of workcharged tenure, the modus would be of granting / counting one year for every
Patna High Court CWJC No.21299 of 2018(17) dt.21-06-2022 4/5
five years of service rendered under work-charged establishment. If that also leaves some shortfall, then further number of years of work-charged tenure can betaken / added for making the service of the employee pensionable.
(d) For the purposes of giving benefit to an employee for promotion on the selection grade and time-boundpromotion, the entire period of service rendered as work-charged employee can be counted.
(e) The Rules and Circular of 2013 are valid as has been held in Binod Kumar (supra).
(f) The Rules and Circular of 2013 are applicable to such work-charged employees who have been appointed after 22.10.1984 and prior to 11.12.1990."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the judgment rendered by the learned Full Bench of this Court dated 2.9.2019 is not in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), the petitioner be granted liberty to
Patna High Court CWJC No.21299 of 2018(17) dt.21-06-2022 5/5
approach the Hon'ble Apex Court for appropriate reliefs.
The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available under the law.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the work-charged establishment service prior to absorption should be considered for calculation of pension and retiral dues without applying the dilution factor.
Whether the Final Reference issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Amrika Devi is in consonance with the Supreme Court judgment in Prem Singh.
Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Apex Court for appropriate reliefs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Singh vs. The State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶21
(2019) 10 SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amrika Devi & Anr. vs. The State of BiharReferred¶24
CWJC No. 10036 of 2012
Ravindra Ray
The State Of Bihar
Mohit Kumar Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
