Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 270 (JHR)

Mohammad Nazibullah v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-02-28

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed against a class-IV post in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi (now Rajendra Institute of Medical Science-R.I.M.S.). He superannuated from service on 30th November, 2000. The pension of petitioner was fixed on the basis of initial date of appointment by the sanctioning authority and it was forwarded to A.G., Bihar and Jharkhand. On the recommendation of A.G. Bihar and Jharkhand the pension of the petitioner has been reduced and certain amount has been ordered to be recovered/adjusted vide order contained in Annexure-3. Such decision was also informed to the Treasury Officer, Ranchi by letter dated 19th August, 2002 (Annexure-6). 2. According to counsel for A.G. Bihar and Jharkhand, the services of petitioner were taken in the regular establishment on 5th July, 1974. Therefore, the pension and gratuity have been calculated on that basis. 3. Admittedly, there is/was no two establishments in R.M.C.H., Ranchi (now R.I.M.S.). There is only one establishment, namely, regular establishment. From the service book of petitioner, it will be evident that the petitioner was appointed on 16th November 1968 in the pay scale of Rs. 6570/-Therefore, the question of appointment of petitioner in some other establishment does not arise. 4. Counsel for the A.G. Bihar and Jharkhand relied on an instruction given to him vide Fax Message dated 17th February, 2003, wherein reference of Rule 61 of the Bihar Pension Rules has been given. From the said letter, it will be evident that even the office of A.G. Bihar had not received any clarification as to the effect that the service of petitioner is regular or not and pension has been fixed from a subsequent date because no such information has been given from the office of R.M.C.H. (R.I.M.S.). 5. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner is a contingent menial. From the service book produced by the respondents, it will be evident that the petitioner was granted increment every year since November, 1969. The letter of appointment No. 6334, dated 16th November, 1968 (Annexure-l) merely stipulates that the appointment is temporary in nature. 6. In the aforesaid background and in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was appointed as contingent menial, respondents cannot presume that he was taken in the regular establishment in 1974. 6. In the aforesaid background and in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was appointed as contingent menial, respondents cannot presume that he was taken in the regular establishment in 1974. The note given in the service book that the petitioner was taken in the regular establishment in 1974 to be heared in absence of any evidence that the petitioner was a contingent menial and the order of appointment being regular in nature. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order contained in Annexure-3 and the letter dated 19th August, 2002 (Annexure-6) cannot be upheld. They are, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to issue authority slip and pay the petitioner the pension/gratuity as per original sanction order issued by the R.M.C.H./R.I.M.S. and will pay the admitted dues within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.