Pensionary Benefit Earned On Account Of Meritorious Past Services, Is A Constitutional Right Of An Employee Under Article 300-A Of The Constitution: Jharkhand High Court

Background Facts

Mahmud Allam, Md. Abbas Ali, Deo Narayan Saw and Shekh Ketabul Hussain (Respondents) were engaged under the Birsa Agricultural University (Appellant) as daily wagers. They approached the writ court with a grievance of non-regularization of their service because other similarly situated daily wagers under the University were regularized. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to consider the regularization of the respondents.

However claim for the regularization was not considered so the respondents again approached the writ court. The court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the appellant to consider the case of respondents, who applied for such post. When the order was not complied with, a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act was laid, which was disposed of on a statement made on behalf of the appellant that interview for selecting the suitable candidates was in progress. Later respondents were offered appointment, which according to the appellant university were fresh appointments and therefore respondents were not entitled to claim any benefit of their past services.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed writ applications to claim all benefits of pay, allowances and pension for their past services. These writ applications were disposed of with a direction by the court to the Respondent University that the respondents' past services should be counted for pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant university filed the Letters Patent Appeals.

The appellant university submitted that due to past services of the respondents, appropriate age relaxation was granted to regularize their service, so these were fresh appointments.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that they have been claiming their regularization for almost three decades but the appellants did not considered their case.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the respondents were working in the University for almost three decades, so their past services should be considered for pensionary benefits.

The court further observed that even appellant recognized the past services of respondent by granting them age relaxation. Therefore, respondent were entitled for counting of their past services for pension. The court relied on the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein the Supreme Court held that pension is not a bounty or a charity, it is earned by the employee on account of meritorious past services.

The court held that by laying a challenge to the writ court's order, the appellant was trying to rob the respondents of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 430 of 2023; L.P.A. No. 459 of 2023 and L.P.A. No. 460 of 2023

Case Title: Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC(L&C)-II, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, AC to SC and Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C to G.A.-I