Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 674 (JHR)

Sudhanshu Chattopadhyay v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-14

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2011
ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. By the Court.--Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accountant General and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on stipend basis on 5.2.1974 in a non-Government school, namely, High School, Rahe, Ranchi by the then District Superintendent of Education. Ranchi. Subsequently, his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1975 and since then he was being paid regular salaries in pay scale and after ten years of the competition of his regular service, he was given time bound promotion on 5.2.1985, taking the period of regular service of the petitioner from 1.4.1975. In course of time, the petitioner got retired on 31.5.2008. 3. When the matter was referred before the Accountant General for finalization of the Pension, the pensionable service of the petitioner was shown to be from 1.4.1981 till he got retired. On such endorsement, an objection was raised by the Office of the Accountant General that from papers submitted to the Office, it does appear that the petitioner is in regular service w.e.f. 1.4.1975 and, therefore, the period of pensionable service would be from 1.4.1975 till he retired. The Objection raised by the Accountant General was replied with by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi vide its letter dated 9.1.2009 as contained in (Annexure-B) wherein it was again reiterated that pensionable period is to be counted w.e.f. 1.4.1981, as the petitioner was never in regular service before 1.4.1981. 4. Being aggrieved with the said action of the State Government, the petitioner has moved to this Court for a direction to the Authority 10 take into account the period of service from 1.4.1975 till the petitioner retired as pensionable period, as during that period the petitioner was in regular service and was drawing salaries in regular pay scale. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to the statement made in the counter-affidavit, submits that since the services of the petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher', has been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1981, the period for the purpose of pension would be counted from 1.4.1981 and as such, there has been no illegality in the decision taken by the State authority. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to the statement made in the counter-affidavit, submits that since the services of the petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher', has been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1981, the period for the purpose of pension would be counted from 1.4.1981 and as such, there has been no illegality in the decision taken by the State authority. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 5.2.1974 in a non-Govt. School by the then District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi on the stipend basis. 7. Subsequently, a decision was taken by the Government, as it appears from Annexure-2 as contained in Memo No, 1462 dated 2.5.1977, to the effect that the service condition of the teachers, who were appointed on stipend basis, would be the same as that of the teachers, who had been appointed in a regular basis and that the services of those teachers, who had been appointed on the stipend basis, would be deemed to be regular, from the date, when those teachers were drawing salaries on regular pay scale. 8. The petitioner, by referring to the entries made in the service book, which has been annexed, submitted that the petitioner was being given salary w.e.f. 1.4.1975 in the Pay of Rs. 190-204-246-300, which was a regular pay scale of a teacher at the relevant point of time. This statement made in the (sic) to the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was drawing regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1975 has not been denied. Regard being had to this aspect of the matter, which gets substantiated from the entry made in the service book, it is evident that the petitioner was in a regular service w.e.f. 1.4.1975. 9. In that view of the matter, the pension needs to be revised as the period of pensionable service is to be counted from 1.4.1975 till the petitioner got retired. Accordingly, the authority concerned is directed to do needful so that the pension of the petitioner be revised. Consequently, on revision of pension, arrear of pension and other retiral benefit accrued on account of revision of pension, be paid within two months. 10. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Application allowed.