Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1682 (JHR)

Mohammad Shamim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-13

ANANDA SEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner after counting the period which he has served on daily wage basis, under the respondent-Birsa Agricultural University (BAU), Ranchi. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The facts are undisputed in this case. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis sometime in the year 1982, on the post of Correspondence-cum-Accounts Clerk. He was a casual labourer in R.A.C. Library, BAU, but worked continuously. In March, 2003, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by the Birsa Agricultural University, the services of the petitioner were regularized. At the time of regularization, the petitioner was aged about 55 years. Since the age of superannuation was on completion of 60 years, he superannuated w.e.f. 30.09.2008. 4. Be it noted that once the petitioner was regularized, he was granted the benefit of pay scale and other benefits. On superannuation of the petitioner, the pensionary benefit was not paid to him on the ground that he has not completed the minimum qualifying service of ten years, as his services were regularized only in the year 2003. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent-Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, by referring to the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner’s services were regularized in the year 2003 and since the petitioner has superannuated on 30.09.2008, he is not entitled for pension, as he has not completed ten years of service as a regular employee. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined sometime in the year 1982 and since then, he was working under the BAU, Ranchi. His appointment was temporary and wages were paid on daily basis. The fact that the petitioner was regularized, suggests that there was continuity in his service from 1982 till regularization and thereafter till his superannuation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerela & Anr. His appointment was temporary and wages were paid on daily basis. The fact that the petitioner was regularized, suggests that there was continuity in his service from 1982 till regularization and thereafter till his superannuation. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerela & Anr. (2020) 8 SCC 106 , at Para-22, has held that the pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure, but that does not imply that something can be done contrary to the Rules but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind i.e. to facilitate a retired Government employee to live with dignity in the winter of his life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held that such benefits should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities. In the conclusion at Para-27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of service rendered by the appellant as CLR (Casual Labour Roll) Worker, would thus be liable to be counted for determining the pensionary benefits at par with the other CLR workers. 8. In another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 204 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that taking services continuously for 30 years and thereafter contending that an employee who has rendered 30 years’ continuous service shall not be eligible for pension, is unreasonable. As a Welfare State, the State ought not to have taken such stand. 9. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court in W.P. (S) No. 441 of 2022 (Dharikshan Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) had passed a similar order directing to consider the period of service, prior to regularization, for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 10. Factually the case in hand stands in the similar footing to those cases which have been mentioned hereinabove. In this case also, if the period which the petitioner has served as a casual worker under the respondents is counted, the same will be more than the qualifying period for grant of pension. 11. Thus, this writ petition is allowed . Factually the case in hand stands in the similar footing to those cases which have been mentioned hereinabove. In this case also, if the period which the petitioner has served as a casual worker under the respondents is counted, the same will be more than the qualifying period for grant of pension. 11. Thus, this writ petition is allowed . The period which the petitioner has worked as a casual worker should be treated for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the respondents are directed to process the pension paper of the petitioner and ensure that the regular pension is paid to the petitioner. 12. The entire process should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The State will also sanction necessary funds. The payment should be made within four weeks thereafter. A copy of this order may also be furnished by the petitioner before the respondent-Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi.