Equal treatment of similarly situated employees in granting pensionary benefits and prohibition of discrimination based on the period of service prior to regularization.

JUDGMENT :

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the State.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to quash the order as contained in letter No. 3/Estab-70/02 - 4625/S dated 13.9.2002 which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Jharkhand Government informing the petitioner that in order to compute pension, the period of service would be counted from 08.07.1980 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was regularized.

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Bengali Copyist in the Collectorate, Dhanbad, by issue of an order dated 02.08.1962 by the Deputy Collector vide Annexure-1 and while he continued to work on the said post, by issue of Annexure-2 dated 02.08.1980, he was regularized in the Government service. Subsequently, he superannuated on 31.07.2001 after attaining the age of retirement.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that for computing the pensionary benefits, his service rendered in between the period 18.08.1962 to 20.08.1980 has not been counted i.e. the period prior to regularizing his service vide Annexure-2. The petitioner alleges that one Bilash Bihari Prasad, who was also appointed as a Copyist along with the petitioner in the year 1962 by the Deputy Commissioner and whose service was also regularized vide Annexure-2 on 20.08.1980 and who retired from service in the year 1998, has been given the said benefits and his service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 1962, has been counted for the purpose of pension but a different standard has been adopted by the respondents in the case of the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has been illegally discriminated.

5. In the counter affidavit, the fact that the case of the petitioner as well as case of Bilash Bihari Prasad stands on similar footings, has been admitted. However, it has been stated that since there was a specific direction in the case of Bilash Bihari Prasad and, therefore, for computing his pension, his period of service from 1962 i.e. from the date of his initial appointment, has been counted whereas, in the case of the petitioner, a clarification has been sought by issue of letter dated 05.02.2003 but reply is still awaited.

6. From the facts stated above, it appears that the case of the petitioner stands exactly similar to the case of Bilash Bihari Prasad but, the petitioner has not been given the same pensionary benefits which is being extended to Bilash Bihari Prasad.

7. In view of the facts stated above, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be valid and it does not stand to reasons. The petitioner is certainly entitled to the same benefits which is being extended to other similarly situated employees. He cannot be discriminated in such a manner.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order as contained in letter No. 3/Estab-70/02-4625/S dated 13.9.2002 as contained in Annexure-5 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take immediate steps for giving the pensionary benefits as claimed by the petitioner by counting his service from 1962.