ROOPKALIKUER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is about a widow of a category IV employee, claiming from the State of Bihar a family pension. Her husband died in service. He was initially employed on what is known as a "work charge" establishment, but he did not remain in this establishment. His masters transferred him out. This circumstance was involuntary to him. Thereafter, he was given a scale of pay. He also received. promotion. Thereafter he died. His service was short, very short. He served the state for a little over six years, and he died in harness. His widow claims pension, call it widow 's pension or family pension. She was received a cryptic answer that an employee in a work charge establishment cannot get pension. She filed a Writ Petition and did not succeed. Now she has filed a Letters Patent Appeal. It is pleaded on her behalf that the Court was in error.

(2.) THESE are the issues before this appellate Court. Again this is a case where the might of the state is ranged against a hapless widow to tell her she has no case, no right to receive a widow 'spension. The answer must satisfy administrative justice first the Court comes later. Has this widow received administrative justice?

(3.) THERE is a third category, also long -term employees who claim some status within the government after they had served for long years, having been recruited to work charge establishments. When an employment finishes in a work which is completed and the recruitment was made especially for that task, there will be no issues if, businesslike, there will be a clear understanding right from the beginning that the engagement is for the duration of the work only. But, you cannot construct a Bhakra -nangal project for the entire lifetime of an employee and then tell him his labour was bonded to a work -charge establishment. This will become an issue and it cannot be said that the employee does not have a case. The government cannot construct a fertilizer factory and pass a lifetime of a worker by engaging him and retiring him, and then tell him that daily wage is all that he will get between recruitment and retirement. This is incorrect. That liberalization of a free market economy, obliges framing of new policies for short term state employment, policies are yet to be formulated. Then, one cannot engage labour specifically to an establishment the expenditures of which are especially charged, and thereafter, as if by centrifugal force, transfer him out. Would he be in the same establishment? The employee then is given a scale of pay and promotion, would this be a return to a work charge establishment? Was that work charge establishment budgeted for all this? And if he was transferred out, the budget was made for whom?