Education Department's 2013 Resolution Binding; Retrenchment Period Must Be Counted For Pension Calculation: Patna HC

Background

In 1985, Arun Kumar Singh was employed as Clerk-cum-Accountant in the Adult Education Project in Goriakothi. Later in 2001, he was retrenched along with other employees under the Mass Education Directorate. In 2006, through an order, Arun Singh was finally absorbed into the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) under the Social Welfare Department.

After Arun Singh's superannuation in 2016, he did not receive any benefits, prompting him to file a writ petition. Only after this, the concerned department forwarded his pension papers and service book to the Accountant General. However, these documents were returned back, and there were repeated communications between the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and Accountant General regarding the benefits fixed for Arun Singh.

Accountant General stated that since Arun Singh was retrenched in 2001, and absorbed back only in 2006, this period cannot be counted for pension benefits. This decision was based on a letter dated 28 February 2019 issued by the Education Department. As a result, the CDPO recalculated his pension. Aggrieved, Arun Singh challenged this calculation by filing a writ petition.

Arguments

Arun Kumar Singh argued that the 2006 order that absorbed him, specifically mentioned that while the employees wont receive seniority benefits based on past service, their past services in the Mass Education Directorate would be counted for pension. He referred to a 2013 resolution issued by the Education Department, which stated that the retrenchment period of Adult Education employees would be counted for pension, after their absorption in another department. He explained that he was not claiming salary for the retrenchment period, but only wanted this period counted for pension purposes.

On the other hand, the state argued that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in SLP No. 7358 of 2018, the state argued that the retrenchment period from 2001 to 2006 should not be counted for pension benefits.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court cited C.W.J.C. Nos. 20780 and 20801 of 2010, which concerned the continuation of service for a certain retrenchment period. The court noted that the petitioners in those cases, were considered as continuing in service on a notional basis, for pension benefits. Following this, a resolution was passed in 2013 by the Education Department (2013 Resolution), which, the court explained, is still binding.

Further, the court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in SLP No. 7358 of 2018. The court explained that the decision was only concerned about the payment of salary for the retrenchment period, and did not deal with the issue of counting that period for pension benefits.

Thus, the court allowed the writ petition and held that the 2013 Resolution ought to apply in this case. The court held that the retrenchment period of Arun Kumar Singh could not be discounted from pension calculations. Consequently, the court set aside the order that recalculated Arun Singh's pension, and ordered the Accountant General to issue a fresh payment order.

Decided on: 01-05-2025

Case No. CWJC 6957 of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kanupriya and Mr. Abhishek Anand

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC-3 with Ms. Neelam Kumari; Mr. Ram Yash Singh for Accountant General

Click Here To Read/Download The Order