JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed praying for a direction upon the respondents to count the past services in continuity, in respect to the period that the petitioners have rendered as Paid Manager in the Central Co-operative Bank, before they were absorbed in the Government service on Class-III Posts, for the purpose of making payment of the benefits of ACP / MACP Schemes. Further prayer has been made to modify the fixation of pension on the basis of improved salary and last pay drawn. The petitioners have also claimed for payment of arrears of pensionary benefits. 3. All these matters are arising from the identical facts and the petitioners in all the cases have prayed for identical reliefs. The pleading in all these writ petitions as well as counter affidavits are same and similar; accordingly, with consent of the parties, all these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The brief facts are that the petitioners were appointed initially as Paid Managers in different Central Co-operative Banks of the State of Jharkhand on different dates; from the year 1975-1985. Thereafter, they raised a plea to absorb them in regular establishment of the Government Service. Pursuant to this, all the petitioners, working as Paid Managers participated in the selection process and were found fit. As a result, the petitioners were selected and absorbed in the Class-III Posts of the Government of Jharkhand, in the year 2003. Thereafter, they rendered their services and superannuated on different dates in the year 2009-10. After their retirement, they raised claim with the Government that their past services, i.e. prior to absorption should be counted, for the payment of pensionary benefits, accordingly they should be found eligible for grant of pension on counting of cumulative period of service rendered by them, including the period prior to the date of absorption. Their claim was rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed which were allowed and the rejection order was set aside and quashed. Further, in the intra court appeal the Court directed the State Government to formulate a policy, without interfering with the observations given the Learned Single Judge. Thereafter, a policy was framed but petitioners were not granted the benefit of MACP and ACP, hence these writ petitions have been filed. 5. Further, in the intra court appeal the Court directed the State Government to formulate a policy, without interfering with the observations given the Learned Single Judge. Thereafter, a policy was framed but petitioners were not granted the benefit of MACP and ACP, hence these writ petitions have been filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents by passing of a reasoned order, denied the claim of the petitioners stating that the period prior to absorption is a period when the petitioners have rendered as Paid Managers in the Central Co-operative Bank. They stated that this period is not a period to be categorized as that of Government Service, as the post of Paid Manager is not a Government sanctioned post. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners was denied by the respondent-State (Department). He further submits that against the rejection order, several writ petitions were filed, which were heard and decided together. The writ petitions were allowed and the order of rejection dated 07.03.2014 was quashed and set aside and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the matter afresh, taking into account the observations made by the Court, within specified period. He further submits that the intra court appeal preferred by the government against the judgment of writ court was dismissed and the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to formulate a policy, without interfering with the observations of the Learned Single Judge. He lastly submits that when the respondents have considered their past services as valid, then there is no logic in denying the same services, which has been considered as to be good and substantive for grant of pension and to be not good and substantive for grant of ACP / MACP benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Paid Managers are not Government servants and hence, they cannot claim parity with the salary paid to regular Government servant. In view of the Circular No. 503 dated 31.05.1989, the paid managers are neither government servant, nor entitled for any kind of payment from the State Government. Hence, the prayer of petitioners for absorption of their service as Paid Manager for the purpose of benefits of ACP/MACP are not legally enforceable against the Respondent State. He further submits that in the light of the decision taken vide Memo. Hence, the prayer of petitioners for absorption of their service as Paid Manager for the purpose of benefits of ACP/MACP are not legally enforceable against the Respondent State. He further submits that in the light of the decision taken vide Memo. No. 469 dated 20.03.2020, all the Deputy Commissioners were directed to take appropriate steps for computing and determining the pensionary/consequential benefits of Paid Managers vide Letter No. 674 dated 10.06.2020 and letter No.1432 dated 27.08.2020 by the office of Respondent No.2. He lastly submits that none of the petitioners are fulfilling the pre-requisite prescribed under scheme to get benefit of ACP/MACP; hence they are not eligible for this benefit on the basis of their past services as Paid Managers as enumerated in the circulars for the grant of ACP/MACP. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and averments made therein, it appears that the petitioners were appointed initially as Paid Managers in different Central Co-operative Banks of State of Jharkhand, on different dates; i.e. from the year 1975-1985. Thereafter, they raised a plea to absorb them in Government Establishment. This matter was contested and had traveled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Seva Sangh reported in (1998) 8 SCC 218 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to conduct a selection process, with possible relaxation, in order to absorb the employees in Regular Establishment of the Government Service. Pursuant thereto; all the petitioners, working as Paid Managers participated in the selection process and were found fit. As a result, the petitioners were selected and absorbed in the Class-III Posts of the Government of Jharkhand, in the year 2003. Thereafter, they rendered their services and came to retire on different dates. 8. After the retirement, the petitioners raised claim with the Government that their past services, i.e. prior to absorption should be counted, for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits, and accordingly they should be found eligible for grant of pension on counting of cumulative period of service rendered by them, including the period prior to the date of absorption. 8. After the retirement, the petitioners raised claim with the Government that their past services, i.e. prior to absorption should be counted, for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits, and accordingly they should be found eligible for grant of pension on counting of cumulative period of service rendered by them, including the period prior to the date of absorption. The respondents by passing orders denied the claim of the respective petitioners, stating that the period prior to absorption is a period that the petitioners have rendered as Paid Managers in the Central Co-operative Bank; as such, this period is not a period to be categorized as that of Government Service. 9. From record, it further appears that against the order of rejection passed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioners was rejected; the petitioners moved before this court. The matter being W.P.(S) No. 4461 of 2009, in the case of Bijay Kumar Jaiswal and Others Vrs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous matters, this Court heard the parties and passed final order on 13.04.2016. The writ petitions were allowed and the order of rejection dated 07.03.2014 was quashed and set aside. A direction was issied to the respondents to consider the matter afresh. The writ court in the said W.P.(S) No. 4461 of 2009 observed that once decision for absorption in service under the scheme of absorption has been taken, the services rendered before absorption would be deemed to be legal and valid. At such belated stage and with a passage of years, it would not be fair on the part of the Welfare State to deny / wipeout or to obliterate past services, so as to deny counting their past services for computation of pension. For ready reference, paragraph nos.17 and 18 of the judgment of Writ Court are quoted herein below: “17. Moreover, once decision for absorption in service under the scheme of absorption has been taken, the services rendered for absorption would be deemed to be legal and valid. And at such belated stage and with a passage of years, it would not be fair on the part of the Welfare State to deny / wipeout or to obliterate past services, so as to deny counting past services so as to deny counting their past services for computation of pension. 18. And at such belated stage and with a passage of years, it would not be fair on the part of the Welfare State to deny / wipeout or to obliterate past services, so as to deny counting past services so as to deny counting their past services for computation of pension. 18. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Rani Dutta, Aaya / Attendant &Ors. Vs. State Industrial Court, Indore &Ors.as reported in (1985) 3 SCC 148 has held that after the absorption of the employees in Bhilai Steel Plant their services shall be counted since the commencement of their employment and treated to be continuous.” Thereafter, the respondent preferred intra court appeal against the said judgment before the Division Bench being L.P.A. No. 447 of 2016, wherein vide judgment and order dated 11.09.2018, the Division Bench, without interfering with the observations of the Learned Single Judge, directed the State Government to formulate a policy. It was observed that the respondent State should decide the claims of the litigants to calculate their previous service in the Co-operative Bank as pensionable service in the State Government. For ready reference, paragraph 7 of L.P.A. No. 447 of 2016 is quoted herein below: “7. Thus, we also hereby direct the State of Jharkhand to decide the claims of the present respondents (original petitioners) in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Governmental policy to calculate their previous services in the Co-operative Society as a pensionable service in the State Government. If any new policy is formulated by the State Government for the purpose of the pension, the same shall be applicable to the original petitioners also. The decision will be taken by the State Government independent of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as independent of the observations made in this order also. We also direct the State of Jharkhand to decide the claims of the present respondents (original petitioners) after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to them, as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. If any adverse order is passed, liberty is reserved with the present respondents (original petitioners) to challenge the same in accordance with law before appropriate forum.” 10. If any adverse order is passed, liberty is reserved with the present respondents (original petitioners) to challenge the same in accordance with law before appropriate forum.” 10. It further appears from record that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondent-State, through Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative (Co-operative Wing), came-up with a resolution as contained in Memo No. 469, dated 20.03.2020; whereby the Department undertook that the employees / petitioners would get the benefits of past services of the period they have rendered as Paid Managers. A formula was adopted and 5 years of services rendered as Paid Managers would be counted as one. Further, those who had completed 10 years of services , as qualifying period, their services would be considered as complete, and they would be held as entitled for receiving pension, on the basis of past services rendered as Paid Manager, prior to absorption. 11. Thus, the sole issue to be decided by this Court is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to claim their past services in continuity, in respect to the period in which they have rendered as “Paid Manager” in the Central Co-operative Bank, before they were absorbed in the Government service on Class-III Posts, for the purpose of making payment of the benefits of ACP / MACP Schemes? 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and development prima facie the case of the petitioners appears to be genuine and well founded and the same is based on the analogy, that the past services (as Paid Managers) prior to absorption should be counted for calculation of requisite service for ACP / MACP benefit because on the same analogy the decision taken by the State Government, the services has been considered as to be valid for grant of pension. As a matter of fact, the respondents themselves have relaxed the provision of Rule 58 and Rule 61 of the Pension Rules, in the matter of granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Further, the respondents have considered their past services as valid as per the provision of Rule 58 and Rule 61 of the Pension Rules, then there is no logic in denying the same services, which has been considered as to be good and substantive for grant of pension, to be not good in substantive for grant of ACP / MACP benefits. 13. 13. In the case of Usha Rani Dutta, Aaya / Attendant & Ors. Vs. State Industrial Court, Indore & Ors, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 148 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the absorption of an employee from one service to another would render the past services to be counted as one. “12. The learned Member of the Industrial court with whom High Court appears to have agreed, was of the opinion that when the Clinic had its separate existence it was not covered in the expression “industry” and that even though Bhilai Steel Plant is an industry, the Clinic could not be styled as industry. In our opinion this distinction drawn is entirely meaningless. If Bhilai Steel Plant is an industry and if under the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v.R. Rajappa [ (1978) 2 SCC 213 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 315 : (1978) 3 SCR 207 ] a hospital is an industry, this distinction drawn between two branches of administration of Bhilai Steel Plant attaches importance to a shadow without substance and substance without significance. The Clinic had no independent existence. In fact it was an euphemism to call it an independent undertaking. It was part and parcel of Bhilai Steel Plant administrative set-up. May be for purpose of accounting 100% grant received from the Government of India was kept in a separate account but that does not clothe the Clinic with any independent existence. It was nowhere suggested that the employees of the Clinic were employees of the Government of India. This aspect did agitate the mind of the High Court when it observed that: “it is a moot question whether the employees in the Clinic were employees of the Government of India or of the Plant”. It was nowhere suggested that the employees of the Clinic were employees of the Government of India. This aspect did agitate the mind of the High Court when it observed that: “it is a moot question whether the employees in the Clinic were employees of the Government of India or of the Plant”. The undisputed fact is that the Clinic was managed by Chief Medical Officer of Bhilai Steel Plant with a designation of Administrative Officer of the Clinic and was accountable for the money received from the Government of India as grant to the Undertaking called Bhilai Steel Plant and if it was never contended that the employees of the Clinic were the employees of the Government of India, indisputably the Labour Court was perfectly justified in holding that the employees of the Clinic were the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant working in a department called Clinic under the administrative control of Chief Medical Officer who was under the overall administrative control of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant. In our opinion, therefore the Labour Court was perfectly justified in holding that since the inception of the Clinic the employees were the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant and that the absorption was an acceptance of reality avoiding the pretence.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Having regard to the above decisions and taking into consideration of the fact that respondents have considered the past service of petitioners as valid as per the provision of Rule 58 and Rule 61 of the Pension Rules; then there is no logic in denying the same services for grant of ACP / MACP benefits. As stated hereinabove; service period of the “Paid Manager” has been accepted to be good and substantive for grant of pension, then there is no reason as to why the same period would be not good and substantive for grant of ACP / MACP benefits. As such, the issue is answered in affirmative and this Court holds that the past services (as Paid Managers) prior to absorption should be counted for calculation of requisite service for ACP / MACP benefits. 15. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed. The respondents are directed to count the past services in continuity for the purpose of making payment of the benefits of ACP/ MACP Schemes. 15. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed. The respondents are directed to count the past services in continuity for the purpose of making payment of the benefits of ACP/ MACP Schemes. The concerned Respondent are further directed to modify the fixation of pension on the basis of improved salary and last pay drawn and accordingly make payment of arrears of pensionary benefits as well. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.