Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 124

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Parmeshwar Nanda Etc – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 505-546 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 27922-27948, 32135-32145 of 2017, 852 of 2018, 4380, 4698-4699 of 2019)
Decided On : 07-02-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the parties :Dhruv Mehta, Abhishek Puri, P.N. Puri, J.S. Marahatta, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Manoj Swarup, S.B. Upadhyay, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Shivam, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Chaubey, Advocate, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Advocate, Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Onkar Singh, Adv Mr. Arun Verma, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Baid, Advocate, Mr. Ronak Baid, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Raina, Advocate, Mr. Udian Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Srikaanth S., Advocate, Mr. Jaideep Khnna, Advocate, Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Manjesh Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any specific condition in Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to erstwhile employees of Project.

Headnote:
Service Law – Pension – Appellants were appointed under Project, co-sponsored by Central Government and State Government, in erstwhile undivided State of Bihar between period 1978 to 1990 – Clause 11 of notification dated 30th May, 2007 issued by Government of Jharkhand is to the effect that absorption of surplus personnel will be considered as new appointments and they will not be granted benefit of seniority on the basis of their past service – Neither will such past service entitle them to such pay protection – Appellants were appointed under a specific Scheme – Such project was not a permanent establishment of Government as it was meant for a specific purpose funded by Central Government for a specified period – Appointment of appellants under the Project is not a part of any cadre of State Government – Appointment of appellants under the project was not in a pay scale nor was it sanctioned without a time limit – Circular has not granted pensionary benefits – In absence of any specific condition in Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to erstwhile employees of Project – Appellants cannot turn around to say that services rendered by them under the Project shall be counted for pension – Since appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension – No error in order passed by High Court which may warrant interference in present appeals – Appeals dismissed. [Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 – Rule 59] (Paras 18, 21, 22, 23 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against an order passed by Full Bench of High Court of Jharkhand on 16th June, 2017 wherein it has been held that the services rendered by the appellants under Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project, cannot be counted under a Government scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits after the appellants were appointed by State.
Findings of the Court:
In the absence of any specific condition in the Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to the erstwhile employees of the Project. The appellants cannot turn around to say that the services rendered by them under the Project shall be counted for pension. The Circular dated 12th August, 1969 is not even remotely applicable to the employees appointed under Project as the very nature of the appointment was for a specific purpose and not for an unlimited period of time.
Result : Appeal disposed of in terms.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 505-531 of 2020 Civil Appeal Nos. 532-542 of 2020 Civil Appeal Nos. 543 of 2020 AND Civil Appeal Nos. 545-546 of 2020

1. The present appeals are directed against an order passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Jharkhand on 16th June, 2017 wherein it has been held that the services rendered by the appellants under the Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project[for short, 'Project'] cannot be counted under a Government scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits after the appellants were appointed by the State.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants were appointed under the Project, co-sponsored by the Central Government and the State Government, in the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar between the period 1978 to 1990. Some of the appellants were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors whereas other appellants were appointed in the ministerial cadre such as Stenographer, Clerk cum Accountant, Clerk cum Typist, Peon as well as Drivers. The appellants were working under the Project during the bifurcation of the State and their services fell in the successor State of Jharkhand which was formed on 15th November, 2000. The Government of India vide policy decision dated 1st April, 2001 closed the Project. The Government of Jharkhand, consequent to the bifurcation of State of Bihar, declared the employees to be surplus w.e.f. 16th May, 2001.

3. The Government of Jharkhand issued a notification dated 30th May, 2007 for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project in the Departments of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Finance, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Urban Development etc. on different posts, in their respective prescribed scales of pay. A perusal of the said notification shows that there were 756 employees who were declared as surplus and were to be absorbed by the State. It appears that most of the surplus employees were absorbed in different scales of pay vide letter of appointments starting from 24th July, 2007 except those who had attained the age of superannuation or had died prior to such absorption.

4. As per Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification dated 30th May, 2007, the surplus employees absorbed were to be treated as new appointments and the services rendered by them prior to their declaration as surplus i.e. prior to 15th May, 2001, would not be counted for the purpose of their seniority and pay protection. Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification read as under:

"11. The adjustment of surplus personnels will be considered new appointment and being surplus on the basis of prior service, they will not be benefitted of seniority.

12. These surplus personnels will not be benefitted by pay protection."

5. 59 writ petitions came to be filed claiming pensionary benefits and seniority before the High Court. The matter was placed before the Full Bench in view of the divergence of opinions of the two Division Benches of the Jharkhand High Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Bhubneshwar Mahto LPA No. 515 of 2004 and State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha LPA No. 188 of 2004.

6. LPA No. 515 of 2004 was preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Bench passed on 21st November, 2003. The writ petitioner was directed to be paid salary for the period 16th May, 2001 to 31st July, 2001 i.e. the date of his retirement. The writ petitioner was ordered to be treated as a regular employee of the State, having been appointed on 10th December, 1968, much before the Project started in the year 1978. LPA No. 188 of 2004 was preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Bench. In the appeal, it was held that the writ petitioner therein was appointed under the Project which was abolished on the specific condition that past service rendered by him will not be taken into account. Such writ petitions were categorized into three groups by the Full Bench. The first group of petitions were from those employees who ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 124

IMPORTANT POINTIn absence of any specific condition in Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to erstwhile employees of Project.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any specific condition in Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to erstwhile employees of Project.