Pension Is Not A Bounty Or Charity, It's Earned By Employee On Account Of Meritorious Past Services: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty or a charity, it is earned by the employee on account of meritorious past services.
The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal by the University against the common order in Writ Petitions filed by its employees.
The Court said that by laying a challenge to Writ Court’s orders giving pensionary benefits, Birsa Agricultural University was trying to rob the employees of a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrasekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar” (1971) 2 SCC 330 and observed, “pension is not a bounty or a charity, it is earned by the employee on account of meritorious past services. By laying a challenge to the writ Court’s order dated 13th April 2023, the appellant-University is trying to rob the respondents of a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
Advocate Abhijeet Kumar appeared for the Appellant and State Counsel Suresh Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, Writ Petitions were filed by Mahmud Allam, Md. Abbas Ali, Deo Narayan Saw (since deceased) and Shekh Ketabul Hussain for their regularisation from the date of joining the service as daily wages employees or, in the alternative, counting of their past services for pensionary benefits given to the other similarly situated persons.
The respondents who were engaged under the Birsa Agricultural University as daily wagers on class-III posts approached the writ Court with a grievance against the regularisation of other similarly situated daily wagers under the University.
The Writ Court held that the respondents’ past services should be counted for pensionary benefits with a direction to the University to consider regularisation of the daily wagers keeping in view the job suitability, qualification, experience etc.
The daily wagers were again constrained to approach the writ Court as their claim for the regularisation was not considered. Contempt of Court proceedings were initiated when the University did not comply with the order in favour of the respondent. However, it was disposed of on a statement made on behalf of the University that the interview for selecting suitable candidates was in progress.
According to the Court, the orders passed by the writ Court in previous proceedings have attained finality and are binding on the University. The very fact that the University granted age relaxation to the respondents recognized the past services rendered by them and, therefore, they are entitled to count their past services for pension.
Moreover, the Court noted that there is no stipulation in the appointment letter restricting the benefit of past services. This would not only deprive the respondents of the benefit of their past services if on a technical plea, it is held that their appointment is fresh, the very philosophy behind pension shall then also be overlooked.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals.
Cause Title: Birsa Agricultural University v. State of Jharkhand
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Adv. Harsh Chandra
Respondent: SC(L&C)-II Suresh Kumar, AC Rajesh Kumar Singh, AC Abhinay Kumar
