Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
Suchitra Jha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 502 & 47 of 2022
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Pensionary Benefit - Service Calculation - Clause 24.A(I) of the Statute - The judgment discusses the entitlement of the deceased employee's wife to pensionary benefits, considering the service rendered by the deceased employee from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008. The court analyzes the legal provisions of Clause 24.A(I) of the Statute, the replacement of the Old Pension Scheme by the National Pension System, and the applicability of Rule 14(i) of the Statute. The court concludes that the deceased employee's wife is entitled to receive family pension based on the completion of more than one year of continuous service.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased employee's wife filed a writ petition seeking pensionary benefits for the service rendered by her husband from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008. The court analyzed the legality of the deceased employee's appointment, the replacement of the Old Pension Scheme by the National Pension System, and the applicability of Rule 14(i) of the Statute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased employee's wife is entitled to receive family pension based on the completion of more than one year of continuous service. The court dismissed the appeals challenging the order to calculate the service period for pensionary benefits and upheld the direction to decide on the payment of family pension and other benefits to the deceased employee's wife.
Issues: The issues considered by the court include the entitlement of the deceased employee's wife to pensionary benefits, the applicability of Clause 24.A(I) of the Statute, the replacement of the Old Pension Scheme by the National Pension System, and the applicability of Rule 14(i) of the Statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased employee's wife is eligible to receive family pension based on the completion of more than one year of continuous service. The court also concluded that the direction to decide on the payment of family pension and other benefits to the deceased employee's wife is justified.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the direction to decide on the payment of family pension and other benefits to the deceased employee's wife. The court also directed the completion of the exercise of granting family pension within four weeks from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both the appeals have been directed to be heard together vide order dated 14.08.2023.
L.P.A. No. 502 of 2022:
2. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 18.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2090 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the services rendered by the husband of the writ petitioner from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008 has not been ordered to be calculated for pernsionary benefit as claimed in para-1(a) of the writ petition.
L.P.A. No. 47 of 2022:
3. The instant appeal has been filed by the Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University through its Registrar under clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the order/judgment dated 18.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2090 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the order has been passed with a direction upon the Registrar, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka, the respondent no.3 to the writ petition, to take a decision in respect of payment of family pension and other benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order holding the writ petitioner entitled to receive the pensionary benefit, i.e., including the family pension.
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, which require to be enumerated, read as under:
The husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Bijoy Kumar Choudhary was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in A.S. College, Deoghar on 25.07.1984.
The husband of the writ petitioner rendered continuous service from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008 as temporary lecturer on full time against second proposed post and since 29.02.2008, he discharged the duty as permanent lecturer after qualifying the examination conducted for appointment in lecturers.
The post of Science faculty got sanctioned in the year 2003, vide letter no.5/mu-14/2002 dated 01.04.2003 under the signature of Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development. Thereafter, the Registrar, SKM University, Dumka vide letter dated 13.03.2014 sent requisition before the Director, Higher Education for payment of arrears of salary on account of payment of pay scale Rs.2200/4000/- but till date the same has not been paid.
The JPSC (Jharkhand Public Service Commission) advertised vacancy in which the husband of the writ petitioner qualified and joined the post on 29.02.2008 in view of the notification no. 91/2008 of Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid joining of the husband of the writ petitioner was in continuation of the work he was discharging since 25.07.1984 as he joined the same college on the same post.
The husband of the writ petitioner represented before the respondent authority to count the service rendered on ad hoc basis treating it to be for every purpose but no heed was paid and the University sanctioned retiral benefits only for the period of regular appointment from 29.02.2008 to 05.07.2018 ignoring the services rendered by the husband of the writ petitioner on temporary basis from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008.
Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2090 of 2019 which has been disposed of directing the Registrar, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka to take a decision in respect of payment of family pension and other benefits to the writ petitioner, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioner and the respondent- Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University.
Argument on behalf of the appellant in L.P.A. No. 502 of 2022:
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds in assailing the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to reckon the service rendered by the husband of the writ petitioner from 25.07.1984 to 28.02.2008 even though the husband of the writ petitioner was terminated from servic
Pension is a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied; employees with long-term service against sanctioned posts are entitled to have their past service counted for pension benefits, regardless of the....
Prior temporary service must be counted for pension benefits, as established by law, regardless of regularization date.
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
The judgment established that the nature of an employee's appointment and the regulations governing qualifying service for pension benefits are crucial in determining entitlement to family pension.
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
