APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The matter stood referred to this Larger Bench on account of divergence in opinion in the decisions rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court. Earlier by order dated 25.6.2015, learned Single Judge (one of us Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) taking note of the divergence in opinion in the judgments rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2014, 359 of 2009, 435 of 2010 relied upon by the petitioners and in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004 relied upon by the Respondent-State referred the matter to the learned Division Bench for consideration, i.e. whether the matter requires reconsideration by the larger Bench or not. Since the order dated 25.6.2015 sums up the common grievances of these petitioners, it is appropriate to reproduce it hereunder:- "In these batch of writ petitions the common grievance of the petitioners can be summed up as follows:- "Petitioners herein, who were working under the Adult cum Non Formal Education Project in the erstwhile State of Bihar, were rendered surplus on closure of that project/scheme on 16.5.2001. Some of these petitioners or the original employees attained the age of superannuation thereafter, some of them died and some of them who had not reached the age of superannuation were absorbed by the Government of Jharkhand in different departments sometime in the year 2007 vide resolution dated 30.5.2007 issued by the Human Resources Development Department. In the notification of their absorption, there was a condition at clause 11 and 12 that the absorption of the surplus employees will be treated as fresh appointment and they will not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their past service and also pay protection Incidentally, it is to be noted here in that petitioners herein were also claiming salary for the period after closure of the scheme in May 2001 till they were absorbed. That issue is no longer res-integra as the very question relating to the payment of arrears of salary in respect of such persons has now been settled by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Asgar Ali and others passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) CC No.10361-10364 of 2014 dated 18.7.2014. The State-Respondents are making payment of salary in phase in terms of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated on behalf of learned additional A.G appearing on behalf of the State. The controversy which has remained thereafter is in relation to the pensionary benefits of those surplus employees, whether those have either reached the age of superannuation or have died or those absorbed in the year 2007 by the aforesaid notification. The claim of the petitioners have been resisted by the respondent-State by filing a detailed counter affidavit in some of the cases such as in W.P.S. No. 4110 of 2013. Learned A.A.G appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that petitioners have relied upon judgments passed in the cases of (i) Bhuvneshwar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.S. No. 4751 of 2003 dated 21.11.2003 (ii) Ila Sinha v. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.S. No.574 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008 (iii) Zahid Hussain and others v. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.S. No. 2774 of 2004 dated 26.3.2010. Learned Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere in the L.P.A.s preferred by the respondent-State vide judgments passed in the individual cases aforesaid being L.P.A. No. 515 of 2004 dated 27.4.2005, L.P.A. No. 359 of 2009 dated 10.10.2009 and L.P.A No.435 of 2010 dated 28.3.2011 respectively. The State went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against all these 3 cases but the S.L.P.s were also dismissed in-limine being S.L.P (Civil) CC No. 8793 of 2005 dated 30.9.2005, S.L.P.(Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 dated 2.8.2013 and S.L.P.(Civil) C.C. No. 19981 of 2011 dated 16.12.2011 respectively. However, it has been pointed out by learned A.A.G appearing on behalf of the State that in another Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004 in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Bimal Kumar Sinha, vide order dated 28.3.2008, learned Division Bench of this Court after taking into account the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dhyan Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2001(1) S.C.T. 472 : 2002(10) SCC 656 was pleased to set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge which held that past services of such persons will be taken into account. It is submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Ila Sinha (supra) or Zahid Hussain and others (Supra) by the learned Division Bench has not taken note of the view rendered in the case of Bimal Kumar Sinha(Supra) on similar facts. It is further submitted that in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners passed by the learned Single Judge, there is no discussion on the import of clause-11 and 12 of the absorption notification dated 30.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim for pensionary/death cum retirement benefits cannot be denied by refusing to reckon their past services as spent under the Adult cum Non Formal Education Project. The aforesaid condition in the absorption notification at clause 11 and 12 therefore is contrary to the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases and petitioners are also entitle to derive advantage of pensionary benefits. Having taken note of the aforesaid contention of the parties, it appears that the matter requires hearing by the learned Division Bench of this Court as there are divergent views expressed in one or the other case such as in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004 in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Bimal Kumar Sinha on the one hand and on the other hand in L.P.As preferred in the case of Bhuvneshwar Mahto, Ila Sinha and Zahid Hussain and others. In that view of the matter, the instant matters are referred to the learned Division Bench for consideration and whether the matter requires reconsideration by a larger Bench or not".
(3.) Thereafter the matter was referred vide order dated 9.10.2015 by the learned Division Bench before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. For convenience sake relevant facts are taken from W.P.S. No. 4110 of 2013. However in course of introduction of facts other relevant facts and documents as have been annexed and relied upon in other analogous writ petitions shall also be referred to herein after as and when necessary.;