Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Dharikshan Prasad Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 441 of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Pension Entitlement - Retiral Benefits - The court held that denying post-retiral benefits to employees who had worked for 30 years, based on technicalities such as not completing 10 years in the regular establishment or the introduction of a new pension scheme, was unreasonable and amounted to a crime. Citing a similar case before the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that the state cannot benefit from its own wrong and directed the state to process and ensure payment of the entire retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who had served for more than 30 years, were denied retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity by the State and the Accountant General based on technical grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the denial of retiral benefits to be unreasonable and amounting to a crime, citing a similar case before the Supreme Court where the state was directed to pay pensionary benefits to an employee who had rendered more than 30 years of service.
Issues: Denial of retiral benefits based on technicalities, compliance with regular establishment tenure, and the introduction of a new pension scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The state cannot benefit from its own wrong by denying post-retiral benefits to employees who have rendered long years of service.
Final Decision: The court directed the State and the Accountant General to process the claim of the petitioners and ensure payment of the entire retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Petitioner no. 1 has served the department for more than 30 years. He worked in the Work Charge Establishment from 1985 to 2009 and thereafter from 2009 his service was regularized in the regular establishment and he superannuated in the year 2018. Petitioner no. 2 was appointed in the year 1985 in Work Charge Establishment and work till 2009 thereafter in 2009 he was regularized and superannuated on July, 2019. Petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 30.11.1985 in Work charge establishment and work till 2009 thereafter in 2009 he was regularized and superannuated on October, 2019. Now after superannuation their retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity etc. has not been paid.
2. It is the case of the State and the Accountant General that since the petitioners have not complied 10 years in regular establishment they are not entitled for the pensions. Further additional objection has been taken that since new pension scheme has been introduced in the State of Jharkhand, petitioner are not entitled for the benefits as their regularization was done after coming into force of the new pension scheme.
3. The aforesaid ground taken by the State and the Accountant General cannot be accepted. Taking work from an employee for 30 long years and denying post retiral benefits amounts to crime. Welfare State cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own wrong and cannot deprive a person of the reitral benefits when that State has taken work from him for 30 long years.
In a similar situation which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 Live Law (SC) 187 wherein after taking work from ad-hoc employees for 30 years the State refused to pay the retiral benefits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came heavily upon the State and has passed the following order which reads as follows:
“It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.”
4. Considering the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I direct the State and the Accountant General to process the claim of the petitioners and ensure payment of the entire retiral benefits including pension, gratuity etc. within a period of six weeks from today.
5. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed.
AI
The state cannot deny post-retiral benefits to employees who have rendered long years of service based on technicalities and must not benefit from its own wrong.
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.
Past daily wage service must be counted for post-retiral benefits including pension upon regularization, as state cannot benefit from its delay or wrong in late confirmation.
The State cannot benefit from its own wrong and must provide pensionary benefits to employees who have rendered 30 years of continuous service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that retirement benefits are a right of the employee, not a discretionary payment, and should be granted in accordance with established legal princ....
The entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees, even if initially appointed on a temporary basis, and the obligation of the State to provide minimum benefits for dedicated service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
