SHRIPATI MOHALI AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2010-5-146
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 28,2010

Shripati Mohali And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay them pension on account of their service period completed from November, 1999, along with statutory interest as well as penal interest. From the rival submissions, the admitted facts are as follows: The petitioners, who were appointed on the post of Chowkidaar under the State Government, have rendered a total period of 9 years and 10 months of service, whereafter they have retired. Interpreting the Circular No. 1852 dated 19.04.1990 (Annexure -1), issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioners have claimed that as per the interpretation of the Circular, the fraction of the period more than 6 months, has to be treated and rounded of as full 6 months period and the total period of 9 years 10 months, has to be treated as 10 years of service which is the minimum qualifying period of pension of the Government employee. Elaborating the grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the same interpretation, the concerned authorities of the Respondents have already granted the benefit of pension to similarly situated several persons including one Pachu Rawani and others, whose actual service period was below 10 years, but rounded of as 10 years by the decision of the concerned authorities of the State Government. Learned Counsel adds that by the same standards, the petitioners should also be deemed to have completed the qualifying period of service and treated as eligible for pension.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondent -State submits that though the pension papers of the petitioners were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, but in reply, the State Government has been informed that the petitioners have not completed the requisite number of qualifying years of service for their eligibility to get pension and, therefore, no pension has been fixed for the petitioners. Learned Counsel concedes however, that no specific reply has been given to the contentions of the petitioners as mentioned in para -13 of the writ application, referring to the benefit of pension given to some other employees, who were similarly situated like, the petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.