Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Ram Chandra Oraon & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3661 of 2012
Decided On : 04-12-2018
For the Petitioner: Ms. Ritu Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Adv.
Headnote:
General Rule,58 - Service rules of employment - State Pollution Control Board - Petitioners had claimed post-retirement benefits like gratuity general provident fund group insurance leave encashment etc on their retirement from Board on different respectively from post of Driver Routine Clerk Sample Taker and Section Officer- They were employees of erstwhile Bihar State Pollution Control Board and their services fell under Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on its constitution after bifurcation of Parent State of Bihar- Petitioners also contended that they have been deprived benefits in spite of resolution of Pollution Control Board of Bihar dated Control Board it meeting held service conditions and recruitment Rules for Board officers/employees are framed service conditions recruitment procedure pay allowance and other facilities rules regulations of officers/employees of Government of Jharkhand will be applicable to officers/employees of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board- Earlier Bihar Board had also taken a decision in its Meeting that in absence of service rules of Board employees service rules of employees of Bihar State Government will be applicable to Board’s employee- This is basis for petitioners to claim pension in particular at par with State Government employees- Board has contested this submission inter alia on following specific counts –Held, Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to following three conditions - First- service must be under government Second- employment must be substantive and permanent and Third service must be paid by Government- Evidently service of these employees were not under Government though may appointed on substantive basis on permanent posts Board- It is also not denied that services of these employees were not paid by government- Apart from that if employees had chosen to continue under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme since their appointment Board and have never questioned it all along it is too late in day for them to turn around and seek benefits of pension as are applicable to State Government employees and that too after having accepted benefits scheme- Plea of discrimination is also not available to these petitioners as they a form class distinct from State Government employees- For all these reasons State Government has also not chosen to extend such benefits employees of Board- If Board for its own reason and that too on grounds of financial worthiness chosen not to make services of its employees pensionable these petitioners cannot demand as a matter of right to be similarly treated as government employees- It would also be not out of place to mention here that resolution not specifically speak of pension rules being made applicable to these employees - Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.
2. These four writ petitioners had claimed post-retirement benefits like gratuity, general provident fund, group insurance, leave encashment etc. on their retirement from the Board on different dates i.e. 31st August, 2011, 31st July, 2012, 30th June, 2012 and 31st July, 2012 respectively from the post of Driver, Routine Clerk, Sample Taker and Section Officer. They were employees of erstwhile Bihar State Pollution Control Board and their services fell under Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on its constitution on 9th September, 2001 after bifurcation of Parent State of Bihar. Petitioners also contended that they have been deprived of pensionary benefits in spite of resolution of Pollution Control Board of Bihar dated 11th August, 1986 and 29th December, 2005 (Annexures- 1 and 2).
3. As per the decision of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in its 10th meeting held on 29th December, 2005 till the service conditions and recruitment Rules for the Board officers/employees are framed, service conditions, recruitment procedure, pay allowance and other facilities, rules, regulations of officers/employees of the Government of Jharkhand will be applicable to the officers/employees of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. Earlier Bihar Board had also taken a decision in its 26th Meeting held on 25th July, 1986 that in absence of service rules of Board employees, service rules of employees of Bihar State Government will be applicable to the Board’s employee. This is the basis for the petitioners to claim pension in particular at par with the State Government employees. Board has contested this submission inter alia on the following specific counts:
(i) These petitioners were governed by the Contributory Fund Scheme applicable under the Board since their appointment. On their retirement they have been paid CPF dues, Gratuity and other benefits but are not entitled for pension and group insurance.
(ii) Employees of the Board though are guided by the service rules /retirement benefits applicable to State Government employees but are not entitled for pension and group insurance.
(iii) Board is an independent Statutory Body. It is within the domain of the Board to take a decision whether the services of its employees are pensionable or not depending upon the financial resources of the Board.
(iv) Services of the petitioners are not under the State Government, as such claim of pension at par with the State Government employee is not entertainable.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Board has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 77. He submits that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh had introduced pension scheme, not in the capacity of employer but as a welfare measure for the employees of Corporate Bodies but had withdrawn the scheme by a subsequent administrative review as it was financially non-viable. This matter was taken up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court examined the issue from different angles and held that employees of the Corporate Bodies cannot demand as a matter of right to be similarly treated as Government employees. While the government employees of State of Himachal Pradesh were civil servants, the same is not true for employees of corporate bodies. Corporate Bodies are independent entities, and their employees cannot claim parity with employees of the State Government. The State Government has a master-servant relationship with the civil servants of the State, whilst it has no such direct or indirect nexus with the employees of corporate bodies. The State Government may agree or disagree to extend the same benefits to employees of Corporate Bodies. It was also observed that it is common knowledge that when pay scales are periodically reviewed for civil servants, they do not automatically
