Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Maya Devi, wife of Late Shankar Kachhap – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 1003 of 2021
Decided on : 09-02-2024
PENSION - EMPLOYMENT AND PENSION BENEFITS - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, SECTION 25F; PENSION RULES, RULE 59 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates notice and payment before termination of services, and Rule 59 of the Pension Rules, which entitles employees with over 15 years of service to pension. The court interpreted these provisions to affirm that the petitioners, having been reinstated and recognized as regular employees, are entitled to count their past service for pension benefits, emphasizing that pension is a right, not a bounty, and should be granted based on the continuity of service against sanctioned posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, initially engaged as daily rated employees in 1988-89, were terminated in 1996-97 without due process as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. After a series of legal battles, they were reinstated and recognized as regular employees, but their past service was not counted for pension benefits, leading to the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were legally appointed against sanctioned posts and had a right to have their past service counted for pension benefits. The court emphasized that the denial of pension based on their initial daily wage status was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to count their past service for pension benefits despite being initially engaged as daily rated employees and whether the denial of such benefits violates their rights under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pension is a right earned through service, and employees who have been regularly appointed against sanctioned posts cannot be denied pensionary benefits based on their initial employment status. The court relied on precedents affirming that long-term service should be recognized for pension eligibility.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' service from their initial engagement date for pension benefits and to initiate the pension process within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the part of the orders of appointment dated 15.10.2019, 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019, whereby although the respondents have accepted the services of the petitioners in regular establishment, but treating them as fresh appointees have deprived the petitioners from getting pensionery benefits. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to count their services from the date of their initial engagement i.e. from the year 1988-89 and thereafter, release the arrears of salary on the basis of calculation of their services from the date of their initial engagements and also extend the pensionery benefits to them.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated employees by the respondents in the year 1988-1989. Thereafter they continued in services, and finally they were terminated in the year 1996 and 1997. The termination of services of the petitioners was against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that is without any notice and without any requisite payment. Their termination from services after rendering 240 days of employment in a year under the respondents, gave them opportunity to raise Industrial Dispute before the Appropriate Government. The Industrial Disputes raised was referred to the Labour Court at Ranchi. The matter was referred and registered as Reference Case No. 06/2002. The dispute was referred by the Government, vide Notification dated 10.07.2005, summarized as to whether the dismissal and non-absorption of the daily rated employees, by the department is lawful, and if not to what other relief(s) the workmen are entitled to? The reference case was decided in favor of the petitioners, and it was decided that the removal of the petitioners, was retrenchment against the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The final order dated 29.6.2005 in the Reference Case was passed as Award under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It was directed that the petitioners should be reinstated in services, and they were directed to be treated to have been in service with continuity. The action of respondents of removal was declared as null and void.
4. The Award passed in the Reference Case was tested before the Writ Court in W.P.(L) No. 3962/2006, and was confirmed, vide order dated 08.07.2008. The matter was thereafter confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 484/2008, vide order dated 04.08.2009. Thereafter upon appeal, it was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. Hence, the reinstatement of the petitioners in services was reconfirmed, and the petitioners gave their joining before the respondents.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they preferred representation before the Department for consideration of their cases for regularization of services from daily wages to regular establishment. This representation of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents on 23.09.2016. The reason prescribed for the rejection of the representation was that the petitioners were not engaged, initially, as daily rated employees, against any sanctioned and vacant post. Further, the process of regular appointment was not followed. Hence, it was decided that they cannot be regularized, as per the Government Scheme, and their representation was rejected.
6. The above-mentioned decision of the respondents was subject matter of scrutiny, before this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. (S) No. 3382/2016 filed by the petitioners, herein. Further, prayer was made in the writ petition for regularization of the services. The case of the petitioners was allowed by the Court and the order of rejection of the Department was set aside vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2017. The order passed by the Writ Court was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 14/2018, v
Prior service as work-charged employees must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, ensuring compliance with principles of fairness and non-discrimination.
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.
Pension is a right earned for past services and should not be denied arbitrarily. It is a deferred payment for past services and is not a bounty or charity.
Service rendered as a daily wage worker must be counted for pension and gratuity benefits upon regularization, ensuring non-discrimination and fairness.
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of pensionary benefits for employees appointed prior to a certain date and subsequently regularized, as well as the requirement to ....
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
