JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner is praying for quashing part of order dated 18.09.2021, whereby though the services of petitioner has been regularized by the respondents but they have denied to count the past services for the purpose of consequential benefits. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue a fresh order treating the past services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of consequential benefits. 3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on the work-charge basis to the post of Keyman-cum-Chaukidar in the month of December, 1987 and subsequently, placed in the Work Charge Establishment of Public Health Engineering Department (now Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Gonda, Ranchi), having pay-scale of Rs.5200-2020 GP 1800. It is the further case of petitioner that during his entire service tenure he worked to the full satisfaction of the respondent and no complaint whatsoever was ever made against him. 4. It is the further case of petitioner that on the basis of several notifications, issued from time to time by the Government, petitioner preferred representation for regularization of his services which was not adhered to. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2479 of 2000 (R) seeking direction upon the respondents to regularized his services and the said writ petition was disposed vide order dated 27.02.2002 with direction upon the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order regarding regularizing the services of petitioner along with others. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-authorities constituted Establishment Committee for taking appropriate decision for regularization of services of petitioner along with others against the sanctioned and vacant post. 5. It is the further case of petitioner that though he was waiting for years together with a hope and trust that appropriate decision would be taken in the matter and his case would be considered for regularization but all went in vain as no decision was taken by the respondents. Thereafter, vide memo No. 5141 dated 31.12.2010 the respondent-authorities denied the prayer of petitioner for regularization of his services in the absence of vacant and sanctioned post at the particular point of time. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities vide memo No. 1209 dated 17.06.2020 considered the case of petitioner along with others and thereafter, vide order dated 23.03.2021 regularized the services of petitioner along with other similarly situated person. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities vide memo No. 1209 dated 17.06.2020 considered the case of petitioner along with others and thereafter, vide order dated 23.03.2021 regularized the services of petitioner along with other similarly situated person. However, vide letter dated 31.08.2021, issued by the respondent-authorities it has erroneously averred that the actual monetary benefit in consequence of regularization will be paid from the date of confirmation in service and pay-level admissible to the petitioner would be at level-1. The decision taken vide letter dated 31.08.2021 has been approved by respondent No. 3 by virtue of office order dated 18.09.2021. 6. It is further submitted that petitioner preferred a representation dated 09.12.2021 requesting the respondent-authorities to consider his case and regularize his service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from the year 1987 and provide pensionary benefits along with consequential benefits but the respondents have denied the same. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from his post. However, though the petitioner superannuated and represented before the respondents but the respondents have not shown any sympathetic consideration to his said request. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits in view of the fact that he has rendered almost 29 years of regular service and post retirement if he is granted nothing, it will be against the mandate of Pension Rules, specifically in view of the fact that the petitioner has already been regularized w.e.f. 31.08.2021. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits in view of the fact that post regularization, he is to be treated similarly at part with other employees, and therefore, there can be no differentiation on the ground of date of regularization. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner will share the same fate and entitlement as that of other regular appointees in the matter of pension, once their services have been regularized by the respondent-authorities. Learned counsel further argues that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in case of Narendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 . Learned counsel further argues that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in case of Narendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 . Learned counsel further argues that it is mandatory upon the State Govt. to fulfil the basic purpose of pension scheme, which is to facilitate retired government servant to live with dignity post retiral life and the benefits should not be denied on technicalities when the employees have rendered their quality services for more than three decades for the respondent-authorities. 8. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after confirmation of service in regular establishment, petitioner was directed to open a Contributory Pension Scheme Account at the earliest in order to avail the benefits of said Scheme. But despite of several reminders till date petitioner has not opened Contributory Pension Scheme Account and represented before the respondents to regularize his services from the initial date of appointment i.e. from the year 1987 and grant other consequential benefits including opening of GPF Account and coverage under Old Pension Scheme. However, as the petitioner was regularized after 30.11.2004 and by that time New Pension Scheme came into effect, so as per letter dated 18.03.2021 of Planning-cum-Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Rule- 203 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 will not apply on him and he will get benefit of pension and gratuity as per Contributory Pension Scheme. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is not entitled to get the consequential benefits of regularization from 1987 as petitioner was taken into regular service with a condition that he will get actual financial benefit from the date of confirmation. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was not entitled to be regularized from the date of initial appointment from 1987 as initially the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post. Learned counsel submits that in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner needs consideration. Learned counsel submits that in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on work-charge basis to the post of Keyman-cum-Chaukidar in the month of December, 1987 and subsequently, placed in the Work Charge Establishment of Public Health Engineering Department (now Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Gonda, Ranchi), having pay-scale of Rs.5200-2020 GP 1800. Thereafter, on the basis of several notifications, issued from time to time by the Government, petitioner preferred representation for regularization of his services which was not considered. Hence, he approached this Court for regularization for his services and in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondents have regularized the services of petitioner but with a rider that actual benefits will be given from the date of confirmation and not from the initial date of appointment. The said action of the respondents is not praiseworthy and fit to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan [Civil Appeal No. 13372 of 2015] and the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his pensionary rights and admittedly the past service rendered by the petitioner has to be counted for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 has held as under:- “34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. …..” Further, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held as under:— “31. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. …..” Further, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held as under:— “31. … … pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a value right vesting in a government servant.” In the case of Poonamal v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:— “7. … … pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right.” In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held; “25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.” This Court in the case Elisa Lakra v. State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 1693 of 2012] vide order 31.07.2013 held as under:— “21. Since few of the petitioners have already retired, the respondents shall compute the pensionable service from the date of initial appointment of such petitioners and not from the date of their absorption and shall pay the retiral dues and other arrears accordingly. 22. The respondents shall also compute their past services for the purpose of giving ACP benefits/promotion, as the case may be and for their service dues and arrears and pay the same to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” In the case of Bir Kuar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P. (S) No. 939 of 2012] this Court has held; “… … Accordingly, it is held that the condition of denial of past services in calculating pensionary benefits and implementation of new pension scheme as well as denial of their legitimate dues are wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal … … Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled for computation of the period of their past service for the purpose of ACP benefits/promotion and all other purposes, relevant to the context.” The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand v. Dadan Prasad Singh [L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 & analogous cases] upheld the order of learned Single Judge passed in Elecius Lakra (supra) and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits taking into consideration the past service of the petitioners. The Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan in Civil Appeal No. 13372 of 2015 while dismissing the appeal of the State of Jharkhand has clearly observed, “Pension and retiral benefits as also the arrears shall be calculated giving the benefit of High Court judgment, within a period of six months.” The Hon'ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases decided on 12.12.2017 taking into consideration the order passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan has held, “In view of the aforesaid, we allow all these appeals, quash the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7702 of 2010 and other analogous cases and direct the State of Bihar to grant benefit to each of the appellants herein by counting services as rendered by them in the Boards, Corporations and Public Sector Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the pensionary benefit after counting such service in the Boards or Corporations.” In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held; “46. The term “pension” has been defined in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 60 at p. 879 as thus: “However, by modern usage, the ‘pension’ is not restricted to pure gratuities. The term “pension” has been defined in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 60 at p. 879 as thus: “However, by modern usage, the ‘pension’ is not restricted to pure gratuities. Thus, it has been held that a pension paid to a governmental employee for long and efficient service is not an emolument the payment of which is barred by a State constitutional provision, but is a deferred portion of the compensation earned for services render. … A pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payments provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past services, and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expense of living.” 47. The concept of “pension” has been discussed in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. (Reissue), Vol. 16, Parra 400 as thus: “Meaning of ‘pension’: ‘Pension’ means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme or arrangement having its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing them with retirement benefits…. ‘Pension’ does not include: (i) a payment to an employee which consists solely of a return of his own contributions, with or without interest; (ii) that part of a payment to an employee which is attributable solely to additional voluntary contributions by that employee made in accordance with the scheme or arrangement; (iii) a periodical payment or lump sum, insofar as that payment or lump sum represents compensation under the statutory compensation schemes and is payable under a statutory provision, whether made or passed before, on or after 31-7-1978.” 48. The concept of “pension” has also been considered in Corpus Juris Secundu, Vol. 70, at p. 423 as thus: “A pension is a periodical allowance of money granted by the Government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services, or of loss or injury sustained in the public service. A pension is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants, and it presupposes the continued life of the recipient.” 49. A pension is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants, and it presupposes the continued life of the recipient.” 49. To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied.” 12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the part of order dated 18.09.2021, whereby though the services of petitioner has been regularized by the respondents but they have denied to count the past services for the purpose of consequential benefits is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue fresh order treating the past services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits and thereafter extend the pensionary benefits by counting his past services. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. 14. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.