IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Rajni Kant Arun S/o Late Krishna Kant Prasad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13646 of 2023
Decided On : 20-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. comparative analysis of employment law precedents. (Para 1 , 9 , 12 , 16) |
| 2. eligibility for pension based on continuous service and regularization. (Para 2 , 3 , 10 , 20) |
| 3. interpretation of substantive post requirements in pension law. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 18) |
| 4. impact of pay revisions on employment status. (Para 6 , 14 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling in favor of pension entitlement. (Para 23 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
1. This Court has heard Ms. Supragya, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner, who superannuated on 31.12.2022, as a Member of Mode Mandali from the Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of Bihar has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents concerned to count his services from the date of his joining, i.e., 26.05.1992, till the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2022, for the purposes of payment of pension and other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the letter dated 18.07.2023, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the concerned respondent has held the petitioner not entitle for pension, in view of Rule 58 and 61 of the BIHAR PENSION RULES , 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, “Rules, 1950”).
3. The necessary facts as culled out from the materials available on record, in brief, are as follows:
(i) The petitioner was duly appointed as a member of Mode Mandali Yatra Party (Entertainment Group) on ad hoc basis for six months vide office order issued by the Director, Information and Public Relation Department under Memo No. 919 dated 23.05.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-.
(ii) In pursuant to the order aforenoted, the petitioner submitted his joining. The services of the petitioner was extended till further order vide office order contained in Memo No. 196 dated 27.01.1993.
(iii) The petitioner was accorded all the service benefits, including the benefit of Provident Fund and group insurance scheme from the date of joining. The petitioner was also allowed the replaced revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- with effect from 01.04.1997 and further the benefit of 6th Pay Revision in the pay band of PB-1 (5200-20200) with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- with effect from 01.04.2007. Subsequently, the benefit of 7th Pay Revision in the pay scale of Level-5 with the basic pay of Rs. 57500/- was also extended, until his superannuation.
(iv) The services of the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons were duly regularized and taken in the cadre of Bihar Information and Public Relation Department vide office order no. 77 dated 10.03.2017, with effect from the date on which the Bihar Information and Public Relation Department Artists Cadre (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2017 was notified.
(v) The petitioner having attained his age of superannuation, retired from the aforesaid post on 31.12.2022. The petitioner on being superannuated submitted his application in prescribed format, requesting for payment of pension, which has turned down by the concerned respondents with a clear stipulation that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 58 and 61 of the Rules, 1950 vide order contained in Letter dated 18.07.2023, which is put to challenge before this Court.
4. Ms. Supragya, learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the impugned order and the action of the respondents, primarily has taken this Court through the Rule 58 of the Rules, 1950. It is contended that the petitioner’s request for pension could have only been considered on fulfillment of three conditions that the service must be under the Government, on substantive and permanent post, and paid by the Government. The impugned order admitted the position that the petitioner was working in Bihar Information and Public Relation Department and thus, inevitably working under the Government; and secondly
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Rajkaran Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Continuous service and regularization can establish entitlement to pension, overriding initial non-permanent employment status.
Point of Law : Disqualification under Rule 31 of the 1969 Pension Rules would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
Continuous service of 40 years as a daily wager entitles the petitioner to pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of regularization.
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
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.