ORDER: Holding that one of the conditions under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is not satisfied; petitioner's service was not regularised, the respondent-Secretary, Department of Industries by order dated 14.08.2014 has rejected the claim for pension and other post-retiral benefits to the petitioner. The respondent-authority has, however, observed that claim of the petitioner shall be considered after the rule for regularisation pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 is framed. 2. Contending that regularisation of the petitioner's service who has worked for more than 32 years was responsibility of the employer, Mr. Md. Jalisur Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on superannuation of the petitioner from service he is entitled for pension and other post-retiral benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Store Keeper on 06.05.1980 in the pay-scale of Rs. 220-4-240-E.B.-5-290-E.B.-5-315 and he joined the said post on 15.05.1980 in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chapra. His service book was opened on 22.12.1980 and his pay-scale was revised on 16.02.1982, 01.01.1986, 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006. He has been given benefits under 6th pay-revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and he has been placed under P.B. 5200-20200 grade-pay of Rs. 2,400/-, pursuant to resolution of the Finance Department dated 28.02.2009. When after his superannuation from service on 31.08.2012 pension and other post-retiral benefits were not paid to him, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2859 of 2013. In the writ proceeding on the statement made on behalf of the respondents, that petitioner's claim which was pending before the respondent-authority by that time shall be decided if he files a fresh representation, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 02.07.2013. By this order this Court has ordered payment of compensatory interest @ 10% in addition to statutory interest, if claim of the petitioner is found admissible. In purported compliance of this order the respondent-Secretary has passed the impugned order contained in Memo dated 14.08.2014. 4. Only ground on which the petitioner has been denied pension is founded on Rule 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, 2000. Under Rule 36 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 pensionable service means service which qualifies the Government servant performing it to receive a pension from general revenues. 4. Only ground on which the petitioner has been denied pension is founded on Rule 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, 2000. Under Rule 36 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 pensionable service means service which qualifies the Government servant performing it to receive a pension from general revenues. Under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 for grant of pension to a government servant three conditions must be fulfilled. The petitioner has served under the Government and the post on which he was appointed is a service under the Government are not denied. He has been paid by the Government is also an admitted fact. The condition that the employment must be substantive and permanent has been found absent in the case of the petitioner. 5. On admitted facts, petitioner's eligibility for appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Store Keeper is not under challenge. He has pleaded that he has passed Hindi Noting and Drafting examination on 21.07.1985 and Accounts examination (1st part as well as 2nd part) before 1992. It stands admitted by the respondents that for regularisation of the petitioner's service steps were taken at the district level which is apparent from the correspondences brought on record. The Director, Directorate of Industries transmitted relevant records on 30.12.2005 for regularisation of his service and in the meeting of the Industry Department held on 10.09.2007 a decision was taken to scrutinize the cases for regularisation. Now, in view of the steps taken by the respondents for regularisation of the petitioner's service, if a final decision was not taken before the petitioner superannuated from service, he cannot be denied benefits of his past services, which otherwise would have been paid to him. In his service book all relevant details pertaining to his service have been entered. Rule 289 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides that a service book for a government servant from the date of his first appointment in the government service shall be maintained which shall be kept in the custody of the head of the office. Entries in the service book of the petitioner have been verified by the respondent-authorities. Petitioner's appointment by an order dated 06.05.1980 and four revisions in his pay-scale must lead to an inference that his service was permanent. 6. Entries in the service book of the petitioner have been verified by the respondent-authorities. Petitioner's appointment by an order dated 06.05.1980 and four revisions in his pay-scale must lead to an inference that his service was permanent. 6. About 50 years back, the debate whether pension is a gratuitous reward to an employee or it is a right earned by an employee on account of his meritorious service under the employer was set at rest by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in “Deokinandan Prasad vs. the State of Bihar and Others” reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 . It has been held that the pension is akin to right of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and an employee cannot be denied pension except, in accordance with law. The view taken in “Deokinandan Prasad” has been consistently followed and reiterated by the Supreme Court in subsequent judgments including the one in “D.S. Nakara. vs. Union of India” reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 . In “Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.” [in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018] finding serious flaw in the approach of the State Government, the Supreme Court has observed that: “it is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceeding up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years.” 7. Things are not different in this case. The decision of this Court, in the cases in which the State of Jharkhand is a party, has not been adhered to by the respondent-authorities and on mere technical objections the employees, and sometimes widow and minor children, have been denied pension and death-cum-retiral benefits for years together. In somewhat similar facts; only difference is that there is an entry on confirmation in service of the employee in the service book, in W.P.(S) No. 1366 of 2017 titled “Nandlal Prasad Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.” this Court finding serious infirmity in the approach of the respondent-Department of Industries has ordered payment of pension to the employee. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2016 titled “Uttam Kumar Das vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.”, to contend that the State has adopted different yardsticks for similarly situated employees. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2016 titled “Uttam Kumar Das vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.”, to contend that the State has adopted different yardsticks for similarly situated employees. It is stated that while service of “Uttam Kumar Das” was regularised and he has been paid pension and other post-retiral benefits, the department has not taken a similar decision in the case of the petitioner, and may be in other cases also. 9. Besides the above, by virtue of continuity in service, pay-revisions and other benefits granted to the petitioner, an inference shall be drawn that the employer has treated the petitioner as a permanent employee for all purposes. 10. By order dated 02.07.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2859 of 2013 which was not challenged by the respondent-State and now it has become final, 10% compensatory interest in addition to statutory interest on the admitted amount has been ordered by this Court. Under letter dated 07.11.1981 in Appendix-6 to the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which has now been adopted by the State of Jharkhand and called Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, interest @ 5% per annum is payable to an employee on arrears of pension and other post-retiral benefits, three months after it became payable. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and the law on the subject, the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 is quashed. It is held that conditions under Rule 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 are fulfilled in the case of the petitioner, and accordingly he is entitled for pension which shall be paid to him with interest as indicated hereinabove. 12. In view of letter dated 07.11.1981 which provides recovery of interest payable to the employee from the erring officers, component of the interest payable to the petitioner @ 5% per annum shall be recovered from the Secretary who has passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 and others who are responsible for denial of pension to the petitioner. 13. The writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and the office of the Accountant-General, Jharkhand, for compliance.