Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1224 (JHR)

Raj Bansh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-08

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.03.2009 passed by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for payment of post retiral dues has been rejected, has approached this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed under the work charge establishment on 15.01.1980 as ‘Godown Chowkidar’, prior to that he was engaged on daily wages in work charges establishment between 10.03.1973 to 31.03.1975. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been engaged under work charge establishment by a letter being Memo No.208 dated 06.10.1986 issued by Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Senha, Lohardaga and since then he has performed his duty under the work charge establishment and ultimately superannuated from service after attaining age of 58 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide W.P.(S) No.3132 of 2007 for his grievance with respect to the payment of post retiral dues on the ground that his case comes under the purview of a judgment of Full Bench passed in case of “Ram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases” reported in 2005 (3) JCR 9 (Jhr.) (FB). It has been submitted that authorities has not considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the claim vide order dated 19.03.2009. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has performed under the work charge establishment and as such he ought to have given the post retirement dues in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra). It has been submitted that the petitioner has worked against one post of ‘Chowkidar’ which was sanctioned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner has never been absorbed under the work charge establishment. It has been disputed by the respondents-State that since the petitioner has superannuated from service by performing his duty under the daily wage capacity he is not entitled to the benefit of pension etc. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner has been engaged and superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years. It has been disputed by the respondents-State that since the petitioner has superannuated from service by performing his duty under the daily wage capacity he is not entitled to the benefit of pension etc. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner has been engaged and superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner has relied on letter dated 06.10.1986 issued by the office of Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Senha, Lohardaga wherein it has shown that the petitioner’s joining has provisionally been accepted under the work charge establishment. The matter relating to regularization of work charge establishment has been dealt with by a Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of “Ram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases” (supra) has held as herein: “17. I, therefore, hold that: (i) The work-charged employees who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment. But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled. (ii) The dependants of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground; and (iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependants are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfills the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment.” 7. The condition has been given that if an employee worked under work charge establishment and completed more than five years of continuous service then only his case can be considered for regularizing his service. 8. From entire pleading, it is no where mentioned or no document in support of the para-17 of Full Bench judgment as referred above rendered by this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner was taken in work charge establishment. 9. It is settled principle that pension can be granted to such employees who have been taken in the permanent establishment of service, there is no provision of pension to the daily wage employee. 9. It is settled principle that pension can be granted to such employees who have been taken in the permanent establishment of service, there is no provision of pension to the daily wage employee. This Court while passing the order dated 22.07.2008 in W.P.(S) No.3132 of 2007, has directed the authority concerned to pass order applying the said judgment. The authority after taking into consideration that the petitioner has not been absorbed in the regular establishment rather he has retired in the daily wage capacity, hence came to finding that the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of the judgment rendred in the case of “Ram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous case” (supra). 10. With respect to the submission made by the petitioner that he was engaged against one sanctioned post under the work charge establishment, but the fact is that he was never taken under the work charge establishment. 11. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.03.2009. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.