Temporary Employees Rendering Over 15 Years Of Continuous Service On Sanctioned Posts; Entitled To Pension Under Bihar Pension Rules : Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The petitioners were appointed on various sanctioned posts under the Revenue Division, Ranchi, such as Periodical Rent Collector, Clerk, and Amin. Their appointments were made through office orders. They were granted specific pay scales and dearness allowance. They were paid from the regular establishment head. They continued to serve without any break until their retirement, though they were technically appointed on a temporary basis. After retirement, the petitioners made repeated representations before the respondent authorities seeking pensionary benefits. They claimed that they had served continuously for over 30 years. However, their services were never regularised. Further their requests for pension were not accepted by the department.

Aggrieved by the denial of pension, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking relief under the applicable pension rules.

It was submitted by the petitioners that they were appointed on a temporary basis but they served continuously for over 15 to 30 years on sanctioned posts with regular pay and dearness allowance. Further their names were never reflected in any casual or seasonal staff roll. The petitioners relied upon a certificate issued by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division (Canal), dated 16.07.2024, which certified that they had worked for more than 15 years in uninterrupted service. It was further submitted that under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (adopted by Jharkhand), temporary employees who have rendered more than 15 years of continuous service are entitled to pension and gratuity benefits. The petitioners also placed reliance on Government Memos dated 12.08.1969 and 13.01.1975, which reaffirmed the eligibility of such employees for pensionary benefits.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent State that the petitioners were never appointed through a formal recruitment process and their appointments were purely temporary in nature. It was contended that they were engaged on a need basis and their services were not regularised at any point of time, which is a necessary condition under the Pension Rules to claim pensionary benefits. It was further submitted that the petitioners were essentially seasonal employees and their work did not qualify as continuous pensionable service under Rule 73 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The respondents argued that merely continuing in service for a long duration without formal regularisation does not entitle a person to claim pension. It was stated that the petitioners' names were never recorded in the permanent rolls of the department. Hence, no right could be claimed by them for pension.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts under the Revenue Division. Further they had worked for over 15 to 30 years without any break in service. It was noted by the court that their appointments were described as “temporary” in the official orders but the nature of their employment, regular extension of service, and payment from the regular establishment head indicated that the work was of a continuous and long-term nature. It was held by the Court that after the petitioners had asserted continuous service and backed it with a certificate issued by Deputy Collector, the burden to disprove it shifted to the respondents. However, the State failed to produce any record or counter affidavit to challenge the certificate or disprove the petitioners' claim.

It was further observed that the employment of the petitioners did not fall within the category of “casual” or “seasonal”. It was concluded that the petitioners' uninterrupted service for several decades in sanctioned posts with regular pay contradicted the essence of such classifications. It was held by the court that the petitioners' employment could not be excluded from consideration under the pension rules on that ground. Further the Court relied on Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, which provides that temporary employees who have completed more than 15 years of continuous service are eligible for pension and gratuity benefits.

The judgment of Govt. of Gujarat (Fisheries Terminal Dept.) v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that in such cases, the burden to disprove continuity of service lies on the employer.

It was held by the Court that the respondents failed to justify their claim that the petitioners were not entitled to pension. It was found by the court that the petitioners were entitled to the pensionary benefits of Rule 59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, read with Government Resolutions dated 12.08.1969 and 13.01.1975.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed. Further it was directed by the court to the respondents to treat the petitioners' service as qualifying for pension. The respondents were further directed to grant pension, gratuity, and all consequential benefits, including arrears, within a period of four months.

Case Name : Surendra Nath Mahto & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Ors

Case No. : W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2020

Counsel for the Petitioner : Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V