Jharkhand Pension Rules – rr. 58, 59 & 31, 38 – Appellants were appointed under a Project, co-sponsored by Central Government and State Government, in the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar between 1978-1990 – Appellants’ services fell in the successor State of Jharkhand, formed in 2000 – Government of India by a policy decision closed the Project – Govt. of Jharkhand declared the employees to be surplus w.e.f. 16.05.2001 – It issued notification for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project in various Departments – As per Clauses 11 & 12 of the said notification, surplus employees absorbed were to be treated as new appointments and services rendered by them prior to their declaration as surplus were not be counted for the purpose of their seniority and pay protection – 59 writ petitions were filed inter alia claiming pensionary benefits, commonly challenging Clauses 11 &
12 – High Court declined the claim for pension – Held: Entire case is based upon r.59 and Circular dated 12.08.1969 of the erstwhile State of Bihar – r.59 empowers the State Government to declare any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted service to qualify for pension, provided that the salary is paid from general revenue – r.58 contemplates three conditions required to be satisfied for services to be pensionable – At best, the appellants satisfied only the third condition therein – Further, Circular dated12.08.1969 deals with pensionary benefits to a temporary govt. servant – Appellants, engaged under the Project i.e. a scheme, were never appointed by the Government either on temporary or permanent basis – Benefit of such Circular cannot be claimed by them – Still further, notification for absorption dtd. 30.05.07 and subsequent letter of appointments do not contain any condition that the services rendered by appellants under the Project shall qualify for pension – Policy decision contemplates that it is a fresh appointment and no benefit either of seniority or pay protection shall be given – Appellants have not disputed such condition of appointment – Circular dated 12.08.1969 is not even remotely applicable to the employees appointed under the Project as the very nature of the appointment was for a specific purpose and not for unlimited period of time – No error in the order passed by High Court – C.A.No. 544 of 2020 is disposed of in the same terms as in Baliram Singh case – Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – r.103.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The entire case is based upon Rule 59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and the Circular dated 12th August, 1969 of the erstwhile State of Bihar. Rule 59 of the Rules empowers the State Government to declare any specified kind of service rendered by one in a non-gazetted service to qualify for pension, provided, that the salary is paid from the general revenue. Rule 58 of the Rules contemplates the conditions that are required to be satisfied for services to be pensionable. The appellants were appointed under a specific Scheme i.e. the Project. Such project was not a permanent establishment of the Government as it was meant for a specific purpose funded by the Central Government for a specified period. The appointment of the appellants under the Project is not a part of any cadre of the State Government. Therefore, the first condition of Rule 58 that the service rendered must be under the State Government is not satisfied by the appellants having been appointed under the Project. The second condition that employment must be substantive and permanent is again not satisfied by the appellants as the employment of the appellants was under the Project. A permanent post in terms of Rule 31 of the Rules means a post carrying a definite rate of pay and that is sanctioned without a time limit. The appointment of the appellants under the project was not in a pay scale nor was it sanctioned without a time limit. Further, substantive pay is defined in Rule 38 of the Rules as a person who is appointed in a cadre. At best, the appellants satisfied only the third condition i.e. that they were paid by the Government. If the first and second conditions mentioned in Rule 58 of the Rules are not satisfied, the State Government can declare any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity to qualify for pension. The Circular dated 12th August, 1969 deals with pensionary benefits to a temporary Government servant. The appellants were never appointed by the Government either on a temporary or on permanent basis. The appellants were engaged under the Project i.e. a scheme, therefore, the benefit of such a Circular cannot be claimed by the appellants. Still further, sub-rule (1) of Rule 59 of the Rules empowers the State to declare any specific kind of service to qualify for pension. The notification for absorption circulated on 30th May, 2007 and the subsequent letter of appointments do not contain any condition that the services rendered by the appellants under the Project shall qualify for pension. The policy decision contemplates that it is a fresh appointment and no benefit either of seniority or pay protection shall be given. The appellants have not disputed such condition of appointment having been appointed under such policy decision vide the notification dated 30th May, 2007. The Circular has not granted pensionary benefits. In the absence of any specific condition in the Circular to grant pensionary benefits, it is not possible to read that pensionary benefits are to be granted to the erstwhile employees of the Project. The appellants cannot turn around to say that the services rendered by them under the Project shall be counted for pension. The Circular dated 12th August, 1969 is not even remotely applicable to the employees appointed under the Project as the very nature of the appointment was for a specific purpose and not for an unlimited period of time. [Paras 20, 21 and 22][692-G-H; 693-A-H; 694-A-C]
1.2 The appellants have been appointed as fresh candidates and, therefore, their period of service for pension has to be calculated from the date of their regular appointment and therefore they cannot get any benefit of past service rendered by them. Since the appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension. Thus, no error found in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals. [Paras 23, 26][694-D-E; 695-B-D]
Civil Appeal No. 544 of 2020
1.3 The reliance of the High Court on an order passed at earlier stage on Baliram Singh no longer holds good. In the State of Bihar, past services rendered by employees under the Project were taken into consideration for pensionary benefits. The present appeal is disposed of in the same terms as in Baliram Singh. [Paras 27, 28][695 G-H; 696-A]
State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Asgar Ali & Ors. (2018)
18 SCC 64 – distinguished.
Dhyan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2002)
10 SCC 656; Baliram Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Pat 9958; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Baliram Singh & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 46; Asgar Ali & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2010) SCC OnLine Jhar 8 – referred to.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Bhubneshwar Mahto Decision of Jharkhand High Court in LPA No. 515 of 2004; State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Bimal Kumar Sinha Decision of Jharkhand High Court in LPA No. 188 of 2004 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.