SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 10653 of 2018)
With
Binod Kumar and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3156 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 26340 of 2018)
With
Ganga Prasad Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3157 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 7215 of 2019)
And
Maheshwar Pandey - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3158-3159 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 8734-8735 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 28954 of 2020)
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Service Law – Pension – Work Charged Employees – [Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 – Rule 5(v)] – Denying of pension after rendering service as work charged for number of years on the ground that they have not completed qualifying service can be said to be unfair and illegal and can be said to be exploitation – For the purpose of pension, only such period from work charged tenure would be added for making service of an employee who has been regularized to qualify him for pension – Work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post – They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per recruitment rules – Services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension – However, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed qualifying service for pension – Service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension which is provided under Rule 5(v) of Rules, 2013. (Paras 6.1, 6.2 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in respective letters patent appeals, the respective original writ petitioners – work charged employees, whose services were subsequently regularized as per the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013, have preferred present appeals.
Short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the entire service rendered as work charged under the work charged establishment shall have to be counted and/or considered for determination of the amount of pension after work charged employees are regularized under Rules, 2013?
Findings of Court:
For the purpose of pension, only such period from the work charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee, who has been regularized to qualify him for pension.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna in respective letters patent appeals, the respective original writ petitioners – work charged employees, whose services were subsequently regularized as per the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2013”), have preferred the present appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, Civil Appeal Nos. 3158-3159 of 2023 (Maheshwar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) is being treated as the lead matter.
2.1 The issue involved in the present appeals is with respect to the counting of the period of work charged services for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service.
2.2 A Larger Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order while upholding Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013 has held that the period spent in the work charged establishment would be counted only to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period of service for grant of pension, which shall be made up by adding that period spent under the work charged establishment and that the entire period spent under the work charged establishment would not be taken into account.
2.3 The respective original writ petitioners were initially appointed and working under the work charged establishment as work charged. The State Government came out with the Rules from time to time to regularize the services of the work charged employees and also how the work charged services to be counted / considered. Lastly, the State Government framed the Rules, 2013, under which the services of the original writ petitioners came to be regularized.
2.4 One of the clauses, namely, Clause 5(v) provided that old pension scheme will be applicable on these personnel. It further provided that granting the pension and gratuity benefits will be calculated with the recognition of regular service of one year for the work charged service of every five years and in spite of this, if the minimum pension paid service is not completed for pension acceptance under the old pension, the benefit of the pension will be given by adding minimum service to that extent.
2.5 Though the original writ petitioners were held to be entitled to the pension by taking into account the services rendered as work charged for the purpose of qualifying period of service for grant of pension, they challenged Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013 to the extent it provided that for the purpose of counting of pension, regular service of one year for the work charged service of every five years shall be taken into consideration. According to the original writ petitioners, the entire service rendered as work charged in the work charged establishment is required to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of pension.
2.6 There were differences of opinion in the two Division Bench judgments with respect to the counting of the period of work charged services for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service, therefore, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench by the impugned judgment and order has answered the reference in 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 work-charged tenure, the modus would be of granting / counting one year for every five years of service rendered
Pension – Work Charged Employees – Denying of pension after rendering service as work charged for number of years on the ground that they have not completed qualifying service can be said to be unfai....
Work charged service does not qualify for pension under Regulation 370, affirming distinct status of work charged employees.
Daily wage employees' service must be counted for pension eligibility, ensuring non-discriminatory treatment under retirement benefit regulations.
Service rendered as daily wage employees must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Work charge status followed by regular appointment must be counted as qualifying service for pension benefits, overriding contrary executive instructions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.