IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6726 of 2007
Mosmat Rajkumari Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Accountant General (A&E), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Secretary, Foodgrains, Public Distribution & Consumption
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6. Director, Primary and Secondary Education & Public
Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents Sr. SC-1 and Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate
---
9.01.04.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to pay the entire salary along with death-cum-retiral benefits including family
pension, gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund which was payable in the account
of her deceased husband. A further prayer has been made for granting appointment to the
petitioner’s eldest son on the basis of the educational qualification on any vacant
sanctioned post in any appropriate department of the State Government on compassionate
ground and in consonance with the declaration made by the State Government vide
notification dated 24.07.2007, whereby a decision was taken to absorb the services of the
exceeded employees of Non-formal Education Project, on the vacant 77 posts of Supply
Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 in the Food grains, Public Distribution &
consumption Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The petitioner has based her claim mainly on the ratio decided by the judgment
passed by this court in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto vide W.P.(S) No. 4751 of 2003,
whereby it was observed that the permanent employee who had undertaken years of
pensionable service, cannot be denied the benefits of service merely because, the scheme
of the State Government under which he was appointed, was closed with effect from the
Subsequent date, though the employee was not retrenched and the authorities did not take
work from such employee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the State of Bihar and later the State
of Jharkhand also, has taken a policy decision by which the Governments have conceded
that the period of service of those persons who were employed in between 1978 to 1992 as
Supervisors in the Adult Education Department continuously, shall be counted for the
purposes of computing their pension.
Learned counsel submits further that the facts of the petitioner’s case is identical to the
facts in the case of Bhubneshwar Mahto (Supra) and the same ratio, as decided in the case
of Bhubneshwar Mahto, is applicable to the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner
and therefore, deceased husband of the petitioner was entitled to the salary for the period
during which the respondents did not chose to take any work from him.
5. Respondents, on the other hand, would deny and dispute the claim of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of
right any salary for the period during which services of her deceased husband were not
taken and furthermore, such period during which deceased husband of the petitioner was
out of service, cannot be computed for the purpose of pension.
Learned counsel refers in this context to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court
passed in the case of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha [LPA No. 188
of 2004].
Learned counsel however concedes that the notification issued by the State of
Bihar on 5.2.2008 and the corresponding notification issued by the State of Jharkhand on
21.02.2009 contains a relaxation of the condition that the past services will not be taken
into account and in the light of the changed policy decision, the case of the petitioner’s
husband may be considered, if the petitioner files a representation before the concerned
authorities of the State.
6. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the documents
available on record, I find that the facts of the case of the petitioner’s husband is on the
same footing as facts in the case of Bhubneshwar Mahto (Supra). Even in the case of
Bimal Kumar Sinha (Supra), the Division Bench of this court has observed that the
benefits of the notification of the State Government under which the condition regarding
the inclusion of past services have been relaxed, and the writ petitioner therein was given
a liberty to approach the concerned authorities of the State Government with his claim.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the
respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner’s husband in the light of the facts
relating to his appointment and services under the various departments of the State
Government and take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s claim for payment of
arrears of salary and other reliefs as claimed by her in this writ application. The concerned
authorities of the respondents shall also take into consideration the ratio decided in the
case of Bhubneshwar Mahto (Supra) and also the Government notification whereby
relaxation has been made in respect of the condition pertaining to the past services. Such
decision must be taken by the concerned authorities of the respondents within one month
from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order and the decision so taken shall
be effectively communicated to the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/