JANARDAN PRASAD ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-42

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on July 21,2017

JANARDAN PRASAD ROY Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 13.04.2016 rendered by this Court in batch of cases lead by W. P. (S) No. 4461 of 2009 in the case of Bijay Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. Petitioners herein have also prayed for counting their past services rendered as Paid Manager in Primary Agriculture Credit Societies (in short "PACS") in the State of Jharkhand and to give monetary benefits from the date of their employment as Paid Manager in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 1996 in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 218. Petitioners herein were appointed to the post of Paid Manager sometimes in the year 1973 on consolidated pay after inviting proper application and interview by the Selection Committee. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna moved before the Patna High Court seeking a declaration that Paid Manager of the Co-operative Society appointed by the State Government should be treated and conferred the benefit of State Government employee. The said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2312 of 1991 was allowed by the judgment dated 21.12.1994 with certain observation. State of Bihar preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being aggrieved by the judgment passed in the said writ petition. That matter was finally decided by judgment dated 20.08.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7357 of 1996 (Supra). The Limited Competitive Examination was held pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which petitioners have also participated. Results of such competitive test were published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission showing 226 successful candidates including the petitioners. Consequentially these petitioners were appointed. However, the respondents did not consider their past services for the purposes of seniority and pension in terms of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-8 in the case of Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh, Patna(Supra), which reads as under:- "8. A reasonable number of posts available-including even those in the process of recruitment be set apart for being filled up by the respondents. A separate recruitment test/examination be held. They cannot be asked to take the same examination prescribed for fresh candidates for entering the government service. The question paper(s) for the eligible respondents must be so prepared bearing in mind the conditions of the respondents such as age past service etc. After taking such examination(s) the eligible respondents may be absorbed subject to reasonable conditions as to their past service seniority and pension." That is how, these petitioners have to approach this Court after representation made by them failed to redress their grievances. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the same issues were raised by the similarly situated Paid Managers in the batch of writ petitions lead by W. P. (S) No. 4461 of 2009 in the case of Bijay Kumar Jaiswal (Supra). The Department of Co-operation, Government of Jharkhand had in the meantime passed an order dated 07.03.2014 rejecting the claim of the Paid Managers/Petitioners therein to count their past services for the purpose of pension. That was the subject matter of W. P. (S) No. 4461 of 2009, which has been decided by the judgment dated 13.04.2016. Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to quash the order dated 07.03.2014 and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh taking into account the observation made by the Court in an expeditious manner. The case of the present petitioners are also covered by the said judgment. Therefore, the instant petition can also be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has earlier filed counter affidavit in the matter. According to the respondents in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government conducted an examination and those Paid Managers, who were able to clear any one of the three opportunities have been appointed after being successful. They have already been absorbed in the employment of the State Government. Those, who have completed 10 years of service from the date of absorption in Government Service, shall be entitled to pension and other benefits as per Rules applicable to any Government Servant. The period during which the petitioners have worked as Paid Managers earlier cannot be counted as having spent in Government Service for the purpose of calculation of their pension and other retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute that the same issue was the subject matter of consideration in W. P. (S) No. 4461 of 2009 wherein order of the Department of Co-operation, Government of Jharkhand dated 07.03.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioners to count their past services for the purposes of pension was also under challenge. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties in the factual canvass of the material facts noticed herein-above. From the narrative, it can easily be deduced that the case of the present petitioners are similar to that of those in W. P.(S) No. 4461 of 2009 and other analogous cases, which have been decided vide judgment dated 13.04.2016. It further appears that the said petitioners had also claimed the benefit of past services for the purposes of their pensionary benefits consequent to their absorption under the State Government, after facing the selection process in terms of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court. In that way, both the set of the petitioners have raised the same grievances. Since the issue has earlier been considered and decided by the judgment rendered by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Jaiswal(Supra), the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of in similar terms. Operative portion of the judgment at paragraph nos. 20 to 22 are also reproduced hereunder for better appreciation:- "20. Though, the resolution dated 26.02.2004 passed by the State of Bihar for computation of period of pension, is not binding on the State of Jharkhand but on the ground that the employees have a human right as also a fundamental right under Article 21 which the States are bound to protect in furtherance of the human and fundamental rights of the employees concerned and not by way of an enforcement of their legal rights. Hence, the State of Jharkhand may emulate the decision taken by State of Bihar or draft a new policy in this regard in deference to the purport and intent of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and for considering the fact that similarly placed persons have been extended the benefit of pension and the petitioners are unfortunate one who have rendered their services in the territory of State of Jharkhand have been deprived to enjoy the fruits of pensionary benefits. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh, taking into account the observations made by this Court in the forgoing paragraphs as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of." The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A stands disposed of. ;

Click here to view full judgement.