Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 796 (JHR)

Daya Shankar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2020-08-24

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.510 dated 31.05.2011 passed by the I.G. Registration, whereby his representation filed in compliance to the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6396 of 2007 has been rejected holding that the service of petitioner rendered as Extra Clerk shall not be counted for the purpose of providing pensionary benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for counting the service period from 15th July, 1971 i.e. initial date of appointment as Extra Clerk for the purpose of calculating the length of service and for the purpose of payment of pension and calculate the pension on total length of service of 29 years approx. The petitioner has further prayed for Time Bound Promotion/ACP on completion of 12/24 years. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the year, 1971 as Extra Clerk in the office of District Sub- Registrar, Latehar and his service was confirmed on 21.01.1981. Though he worked for about 29 years and retired from the post of Clerk on 31.01.2000, but his retirement benefits has been fixed counting his service from 1981. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for same relief by filing writ application being W.P.(S) No. 6396 of 2007 which was heard and disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to reconsider the representation of the petitioner with regard to adding his past services as Extra Clerk to the total length of services and reassess the amount of pension etc. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed on 15.07.1971 as Extra Clerk temporarily and not against any substantive and permanent post and the service of the petitioner was regularized as Temporary Clerk since 21.01.1981 therefore, from 21.01.1981 the petitioner became Government Servant. So for the service rendered as Extra Clerk, the petitioner was not a Govt. Servant. He was being paid remuneration out of the amount collected from copying down the deeds in Sub Registration Office. It has been further stated that according to Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, Rule 58 is very clear that only those persons are eligible to get pension who have rendered services under Govt. Servant. He was being paid remuneration out of the amount collected from copying down the deeds in Sub Registration Office. It has been further stated that according to Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, Rule 58 is very clear that only those persons are eligible to get pension who have rendered services under Govt. and have also appointed against a permanent or substantive post and being paid salary out of public exchequer but the petitioner rendered services as Extra Clerk from 15.07.1971 to 21.01.1981 but not against any substantive and permanent post. He was also not being paid from public exchequer because the petitioner was not working as public servant. It has been further stated that as per Bihar Govt. Finance Department Resolution as contained in Memo No. 2378 dated 22.07.2003, it has been laid down that those extra clerk who have served minimum 240 days as Extra Clerk in one Calendar year; all those period of service since prior to the date of confirmation shall be computed for pension but since the petitioner did not work 240 days in any of the calendar Year’s as Extra Clerk as such, his service period rendered as Extra Clerk are not fit to be counted for pensionary benefit. Further, the petitioner had also not passed final Accounts Examination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in Memo No.510 dated 31.05.2011 is illegal and does not have any leg to stand. The petitioner is legally entitled for counting the service period from 15th July, 1971 i.e. initial date of appointment as Extra Clerk for the purpose of calculating the length of service and for the purpose of payment of pension. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner will not be entitled for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits; the period for which he worked as Extra Clerk. As such, the impugned order may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner by calculating the extra work. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had neither been given time bound promotion nor ACP as such, he is also legally entitled for the same. Learned counsel further relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar versus State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) no.2000 of 2014. 6. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had neither been given time bound promotion nor ACP as such, he is also legally entitled for the same. Learned counsel further relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar versus State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) no.2000 of 2014. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner rendered services as Extra Clerk from 15.07.1971 till 20.01.1981, but the said post was not substantive and permanent. He was not being paid out of public exchequer. He also relied upon Bihar Govt. Finance Department Resolution as contained in Memo No. 2378 dated 22.07.2003, wherein it has been laid down that those Extra Clerk who have served minimum 240 days as Extra Clerk in one calendar year, all those period of service since prior to the date of confirmation shall be computed for pension. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner did not work 240 days in any of the calendar years as Extra Clerk as such, his service period rendered as Extra Clerk is not fit to be counted for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further contended that in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 17.01.2011 under the president ship of District Registrar-cum-D.C. Palamau it was detected that the petitioner has not passed accounts examination and has also not worked minimum required days in one calendar year so he is not entitled for time bound promotion i.e. to say that the petitioner’s case does not cover by the resolution of Finance Department of Govt. of Bihar in which it has been stipulated that for want of minimum required working days, no promotion can be given to the applicant. This provision is also contained in para-2 of A.C.P. Scheme. As such, there is no error in the impugned order and the instant writ application deserves to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the Accountant General refers to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Kauleshwar Prasad as reported in 2007 (2) JLJR, 367 wherein it has been decided that the period of Extra Clerk shall not be counted for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the Accountant General refers to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Kauleshwar Prasad as reported in 2007 (2) JLJR, 367 wherein it has been decided that the period of Extra Clerk shall not be counted for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that on the one hand, the petitioner’s was working as Extra Clerk on temporary basis and his employment was not against any substantive and permanent post and he was not being paid out of public exchequer as provided under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pensions Rules and on the other hand, the petitioner has also not passed the accounts examination as well as he did not completed 240 working days in any calendar year as such, he could not take benefit of the resolution of the Finance Dept. Govt. of Bihar as contained in Letter No. 2378 dated 22.07.2003, wherein para-V it has been specifically indicated that for want of minimum required working days no promotion can be given to the applicant. 9. After going through the judgment as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner because in the case of Pramod Kumar (Supra) the petitioner was given his promotion before 01.09.1983. On the contrary, the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Kauleshwar Prasad (Supra) wherein it has been decided that the period of Extra Clerk shall not be counted for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I refrain myself from interfering with the impugned order as the petitioner has failed to show any error. 11. As a result thereof, the instant writ application is dismissed.