Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 877 (JHR)

Kuldip Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2007-11-28

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the full pension and arrears thereof payable to him after his retirement. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner retired from the post of peon from the office of the District Manager. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'BSFC') Plamau on 29th February, 2000. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa. In the year 1967. he was transferred to the office of the Block Development Officer, Majhiaor Thereafter, he was posted in the office of the District Manager, BSFC, Plamau. Daltonganj on 12 thJuly, 1973 and since then he was working in the said office. The petitioner, after his retirement, was entitled to get his full pen-ion. Bui arbitrarily a consolidated pension of Rs. 40/- per month only has been fixed and is being paid to the petitioner. No reason has been disclosed for such discriminatory treatment to him. The petitioner made several requests and tiled representations, but to no effect. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State respondents as well as on behalf of the Accountant General. On behalf of the State respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner's services were transferred to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. After his posting in BSFC. he ceased to be government servant. The petitioner was being given pension because he was in the services of the Slate Government for the period from 1st October, 1961 to 12th July. 1973. His services were transferred by Letter No. 612 dated 12th July, 1973. If has been stated that after transfer of the petitioner in the services of the State Food Corporation, he was not entitled to get pension from the State Government, as the services of BSFC is non-pensionable. 4. Petitioner's case was referred to the Accountant General (Pension Cell) for fixation of his pension for the period he had worked in the Government i.e. from 1st October, 1961 to 12th July, 1973 and the Accountant General, Bihar fixed the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 40/- per month payable from 10th July, 1973. 4. Petitioner's case was referred to the Accountant General (Pension Cell) for fixation of his pension for the period he had worked in the Government i.e. from 1st October, 1961 to 12th July, 1973 and the Accountant General, Bihar fixed the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 40/- per month payable from 10th July, 1973. It has, however, been stated in Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner's pension should be consolidated at Rs. 1,275/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1997 as per the Finance Department's Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Accountant General, Respondent No. 4, it has been stared that the concerned department had to sanction the pension of the petitioner and whatever the department hoc sanctioned payment order was issued by the office of the Accountant General. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee under the Government and that he had never opted for the services of the Bihar State food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Daltonganj. The petitioner was sent to the office of the District Manager Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Daltonganj by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa vide his Memo No. 1241 dated 7thJuly, 1973. The relieving order (Annexure-1) did not mention any such condition that the petitioner's services. thereafter, shall be transferred to BSFC, which is a non-pensionable establishment. The petitioner had never given his option for such transfer and the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of any valuable and legal right by way of! such transfer. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the services of the State Government and he remained as such all along. He is entitled to get all the benefits including the pensionary benefits, which Is admissible to a State Government employee. Even the consolidated pension is Rs. 1,275/- per month, a; has been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 7. Learned Counsel submitted that nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the respondents to show that the petitioner's services was transferred to the establishment of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. Any such transfer of the services to a different establishment cannot unilaterally be made without even informing the employee. 8. 7. Learned Counsel submitted that nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the respondents to show that the petitioner's services was transferred to the establishment of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. Any such transfer of the services to a different establishment cannot unilaterally be made without even informing the employee. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials brought on record, find that the petitioner was appointed as a government servant in the year 1961. By order dated 12th July, 1973, the Block Development Officer, Chandri, in compliance of the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Garhwa dated 7th July, 1973 had relieved the petitioner for joining the office of the District Manager, BSFC, Daltonganj. 9. On perusal of Annexure-1, it is evident that the petitioner and three others were asked to report for joining in the office of the District Manager, BSFC, Daltonganj, and attend their duties without leaving their place and remaining at Majhiaon as usual. From the order it is clear that the petitioner's services were not transferred to the establishment of the Bihar State food and Civil Supplies Corporation and he was sent to that office as a government servant to work continuing and remaining as usual at Majhiaon. The terms of the order do not show he transfer of establishment and disciplinary control. No document has been brought by the respondents to show that the petitioner's services were transferred from pensionable to a non-pensionable establishment;. Such transfer is not permissible in law and it cannot be done unilaterally and without even informing the employee. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to get pension and other benefits, which are admissible to a government servant. The petitioner's pension is payable according to the provision of the Jharkhand/Bihar Pension Rules as applicable in the matter of fixation of pension of a government servant. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to revise/sanction the petitioner's pension according to the provisions of the Pension Rules applicable to the Government servants and to send the same to the office of the Accountant General for issuance of fresh pension payment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. 12. The Accountant General Is directed to issue pension payment order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the sanction order. 13. The arrears of pension must be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the pension payment order from the office of the Accountant General. If the arrear(s) payable to the petitioner is/ore not paid to him within the said period, he shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum till final payment. Petition allowed.