- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO. 1012/2007 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein was allowed and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was directed to take a decision in the matter of payment of invalid pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge, however, has already recorded a finding that the petitioner/respondent herein cannot be denied the benefit of invalid pension once he has been found to have completed more than 11 years of service. Prior to the filing of the writ petition bearing W.P(S) NO. 1012/2007 out of which this appeal arises, the petitioner/respondent herein had taken several grounds before the Court by filing one writ petition or the other but all the writ petitions were disposed of with some observations and at one stage, the contempt petition was dropped. Finally the petitioner/respondent could never succeed in securing an order for grant of pensionary benefit on account of his invalidity by computing the period of 11 years of service which he had discharged with the State of Jharkhand. Finally, when the Writ petition bearing W.P (S) NO. 1012/2007 was filed, the learned Single Judge was pleased to take note of the fact that the petitioner/respondent had filed an application on 31.01.1968 vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition and informed the Circle Officer. Tamar that he had suffered fracture and was also suffering from fyleria due to which he was physically and mentally not fit in discharging his duty and for the said reason, he sought pre -mature retirement. The appellant -State failed to respond to the application of the petitioner/respondent but the petitioner/respondent abstained from duty. He, however, was not granted any pensionary benefit which prompted him to file successive writ petitions before this Court but although all the writ petitions were disposed of one after the other, he could not succeed in getting an order of pension.
(3.) THE appellant -State vehemently contested the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner/respondent was not entitled to pensionary benefit as he had resigned from service and under the Rules, pensionary benefit can be made available to an employee on resignation provided he served for more than ten years. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner/respondent having resigned from service and having not discharged duty for 11 years, he was not entitled to pensionary benefit.;