Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1115 (JHR)

Manohar Panda v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 16.05.1980 on daily wages and he continued in service till 31.08.2009. The petitioner claimed grant of pensionary benefits however, the said claim of the petitioner was not decided and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that, since the petitioner was working on daily wages, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 4. Learned counsel for that the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has worked for 29 years continuously with the respondent-State of Jharkhand, though on daily wages and therefore, he has acquired a right for consideration of his claim. The respondent authorities illegally denied the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner and they retained the services of the petitioner for 29 years without any just reasons. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and has submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision reported in (2005) 3 JCR 9 , the petitioner is not entitled for grant of pensionary benefits. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, replying to the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the nature of the claim which has been raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding as also in the representation made to the respondents, have not been decided by the decision rendered in (2005) 3 JCR 9 . Even the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts pleaded in the said case. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents illegally continued to take service from the petitioner and denied the benefit of regularisation, and after the superannuation of the petitioner, a plea has been raised that since the petitioner worked only on daily wages, he is not entitled for grant of pension. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P. (S) No. 1149 of 2007 and vide order dated 19.04.2007, a direction was given to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service which also has not been decided. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P. (S) No. 1149 of 2007 and vide order dated 19.04.2007, a direction was given to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service which also has not been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service has not been decided by the authorities and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to take a plea that since the petitioner was working on daily wages, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the representation of the petitioner has not been decided by the respondents, the writ petition may be disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. 8. I hereby direct the Respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2007 and also the representation preferred by the petitioner on 16.03.2010, by a reasoned order within the period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. A copy of the reasoned order should be supplied to the petitioner within the next 2 weeks. 9. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.