Pension is a vested right, not a bounty, and denial of death-cum-retiral benefits to legal heirs/dependants would violate constitutional mandate and equity.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

The State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 27th June 2022 passed in W.P(S) No.922 of 2014.

2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent with a prayer for retiral benefits on death of her husband who was employed under work- charged establishment.

3. Before the writ Court, the respondent endeavoured to make out a case on the basis of judgment by a Full Bench of this Court in “Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand” (2005) 3 JLJR 38 (Jhr.).

4. The State of Jharkhand, however, set-up a technical plea that the husband of the respondent died on 30th September 1991 before he could have completed 10 years of service which is mandatory for regularization of the employees under the work-charged establishment.

5. The writ Court has referred to concluding portion of the judgment in “Ram Prasad Singh” to hold that the husband of the respondent who had completed more than 5 years of continuous service in the work- charged establishment qualified for a right of consideration for taking over his services in the permanent establishment and, while so, the dependants and legal heirs of such employees who had worked for 5 years under the work-charged establishment were entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits.

6. The writ Court has held as under:

“7. From perusal of paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment, it is clear that if Work-charged employees has completed for more than five years of continuous service against one post in the Work-charged establishment, he has right to be considered for taking over in service in the permanent (regular) establishment irrespective of the dates of appointment. Further it is also apparent that on the retirement/after death of a work-charged employees working against a post in regular scale of pay, their dependents and heirs are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits such as pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment apart from GPF and Group Insurance, if otherwise fulfil the requisites qualifying period to earn pension gratuity and leave encashment etc. Since the husband of the petitioner worked against a post in the Regular Scale the petitioner is entitled to get the death benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court.

8. Considering the aforesaid fact I dispose of this writ application holding that petitioner’s case is covered by the Full Bench Judgement of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra) and the petitioner is entitled to receive all benefits in view of paragraph no.17 (iii) of the aforesaid judgment. The respondent no.3 will decide the claim of the petitioner including that of Pension/Family Pension and quantify the same and will ensure that if any amount is payable, the same should be paid within a period of twelve weeks from today.”

7. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned G.A-II has referred to the observations of the Full Bench in “Ram Prasad Singh” to submit that the minimum pensionable period of service for any employee working in the work-charged establishment is 15 years.

8. Mr. P.A.S Pati, the learned G.A-II has referred to the following observations by the Full Bench in “Ram Prasad Singh”:

“15. ….............

DEATH-CUM-RETIRAL BENEFITS ETC.

…...................

The “conditions of qualification” for pension has been prescribed under Section II Chapter IV of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Under Rule 58 three conditions have been stipulated to qualify for pension, as quoted hereunder:

“58. The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:

First-The service must be under Government.

Second-The employment must be substantive and permanent.

Third-The service must be paid by Government.”

However, State Government has right to declare that any specified kind of service shall qualify for pension under Sub-Rule (1) to Rule 59.

It has already been pointed out that the members of the temporary establishments have no claim for pension as per Rule 58 of the Bihar P.