The duty of the government to fulfill its promise of providing employment benefits to displaced families and the necessity to consider past services for pension and ACP benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Roy, J.

The State of Bihar-appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 9.1.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18775 of 20008 by the Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey, as his Lordship then was) by which the Court directed the respondents to take into consideration the past services rendered by the respondents-petitioners for the purposes of pension as well as ACP benefits and not for others.

2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal is/or as follows:-

3. The respondents-petitioners belonged to the families of displaced people from the village Kramchat in the district of Kaimur at Bhabhua. Their homes/lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of ‘Dam’ over river ‘Durgawati’.

4. The Water Resources Department vide memo no. 1133 dated 18.11.1993 under the signature of its Commissioner cum Secretary had resolved to provide employment to one person of every displaced family in different government scheme in the following manner/priority:-

(i) under the first category, those families were included whose 100 per cent land/house were taken;

(ii) under the second category, those families find place whose 75 per cent land/home were taken for the project/scheme;

(iii) under the third category similarly, those whose with 50% of land/house were taken were placed;

(iv) the fourth category was for the rest of the displaced family.

5. The aforesaid resolution dated 18.11.1993 further mentioned that while considering the employment, it will also be ensured that those upper in age would be given first preference followed by the others as per their respective age.

6. Aforementioned social scheme for displaced families is to provide Employment on regular basis and not on adhoc or temporary. Therefore, treating Respondents appointment on adhoc or temporary would be contrary to the aforesaid scheme. Therefore, such of those appointees were compelled to prefer C.W.J.C. No. 1760 of 2000. The same was disposed of on 15.4.2005 directing the Government to consider to change their status from adhoc to permanent.

7. Accordingly, the government took steps and made them permanent. Those who were still aggrieved due to their ad hoc arrangement preferred C.W.J.C. No. 18775 of 2008. The State Government by way of counter affidavit during the pendency of the writ application informed the Court that while respondents-petitioners no. 1, 4 and 6 to 9 have been regularized, sons of the respondent-petitioner nos. 2 to 5 and 10 have also been extended the benefit of regularization.

8. When the case was taken up, the respondents-petitioners submitted that although they have been regularized, the period for which they worked under adhoc service is not being counted for pension/ACP benefits. It was contended by them that in view of 1993 resolution, the State Government is duty bound to extend the respondents-petitioners to their rightful dues.

9. The Hon’ble Single Judge took up the matter on 9.1.2018 and held as under :

A limited grievance has been raised by the petitioners that their past services have not been taken into consideration while passing the order of regularization though they were appointed under the scheme floated by the Government for giving employment to displaced persons, so the past services should also be counted for all purposes, which has been resisted by learned counsel for the State, submitting that as per the direction of this Court their services were converted to permanent establishment and the past services cannot be looked into in the present proceeding as on the date of issuance of notification quite different pension policy was prevailing, old pension policy will not be applicable to the petitioners.

Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioners were brought in service on account of scheme of the Government for giving one employment to every family of the displaced persons, it is the Government who has extended the promise to the petitioners. When the Government extend