Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Non-Gazetted Employees Federation, Ranchi – Respondent
L.P.A. Nos. 169, 287 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 - Section 73 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Entitled for pension - Consideration of past service - Appeals preferred against order whereby petitioners have been held entitled for pension taking into consideration past service rendered by them and benefits accruing to petitioners by virtue of their earlier services – Held, Once writ petitioners were absorbed under regular establishment of State Government, State authority cannot be allowed to take plea not to count past service for purpose of giving the pensionery benefit - Otherwise, there will be no difference in between fresh recruitment and absorption - If cut-off date has been fixed to be date of absorption and from that date consideration of grant of benefit, as per plea of State authorities will be accepted, it will be nothing but absorption of writ petitioners will take shape of fresh appointees and in that condition, decision of State authorities through Cabinet of absorbing writ petitioners, will be frustrated since once Cabinet took decision for absorption, concerned authority of concerned Department is not competent to put a word upon decision of State Government, which is not permissible even under Rules of Executive Business - Learned Single Judge has also considered implications of absorption and in view thereof, has come to conclusive finding to count past service of writ petitioners and passed order holding writ petitioners entitled for pension - This Court, therefore, in entirety of discussion as above, is of view that order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from no error - Appeals dismissed.
ORDER :
1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
2. Both these appeals arise out of common order and as such this Court had directed vide order dated 14.12.2020 that both these appeals will be heard side by side.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have also agreed that both the appeals should be heard together since common issues are involved.
I.A. No. 5416 of 2020 in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2020
I.A. No. 5713 of 2020 in L.P.A. No. 287 of 2020
4. Both the appeals are time barred, therefore, interlocutory applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed in both the appeal being I.A. No. 5416 of 2020 in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2020 and I.A. No. 5713 of 2020 in L.P.A. No. 287 of 2020.
5. I.A. No. 5416 of 2020 has been preferred for condoning the delay of 35 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 169 of 2020 and I.A. No. 5713 of 2020 has been preferred for condoning the delay of 257 days in filing L.P.A. No. 287 of 2020.
6. Heard parties.
7. Having regard to the averments made in the interlocutory applications and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeals within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 35 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 169 of 2020 and delay of 257 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 287 of 2020 are hereby condoned.
8. I.A. No. 5416 of 2020 and I.A. No. 5713 of 2020 stand allowed.
L.P.A. No. 169 of 2020 with L.P.A. No. 287 of 2020
9. Both these appeals, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the order/judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 277 of 2018 and analogous cases whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners/respondents have been held entitled for pension taking into consideration the past service rendered by them and benefits accruing to the petitioners by virtue of their earlier services were also directed to be given to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
10. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The Government of Jharkhand came out with a notification regarding ‘appointment’ of the petitioners instead of “absorption.” However, later on, the Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, issued a resolution being Resolution No. 273 dated 09.03.2015 stating therein that in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the word “appointment” is hereby deleted and the employees are being considered for “absorption” with all benefits in the light of the Resolution No. 273 dated 09.03.2015. The Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand thereafter issued a resolution being Resolution No. 480 dated 04.04.2016 pertaining to the absorption of the services of the concerned employees with effect from 24.08.2011. Further, vide Resolution No. 603 dated 19.07.2016, the Department of Transport resolved to
All absorbed employees are entitled to pension from the date of absorption, while service rendered prior to that is not counted towards qualifying service.
The court reaffirmed the right to equitable treatment in employment, necessitating the re-evaluation of absorption-related pay and benefits for employees absorbed under the U.P. Absorption Rules.
Pension eligibility for past service remains uncertain due to ambiguous administrative policies, requiring clear, uniform guidelines to ensure fair treatment of employees absorbed into government ser....
The determination of pension eligibility dates for absorbed employees remains unclear, warranting state policy reform to ensure consistent application of pension rights.
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
