Jharkhand High Court
Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 19 June, 2013
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.939 of 2012 with I.A. no.3766 of 2013
Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors. .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.V
-----
7/19.06.2013In I.A. no.3766 of 2013, the petitioners have prayed for disposal of W.P.(S) no.939 of 2012 in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 30.04.2013 in Janardan Prasad & Anr. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) no.6739 of 2012 and analogous case.
It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the said decision of this Court.
In the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of part of the resolution, contained in Memo no.1679 dated 3.8.2011(Annexure-14), whereby the services of petitioners, working on deputation in the State of Jharkhand in the Directorate of Provident Fund, have been absorbed among others with two conditions, which are prejudicial to them.
The petitioners were initially appointed in different Corporations. The Director, Provident Fund, Finance Department, Government of Bihar by its letter, contained in Memo no.4456 dated 25.04.1997, had requisitioned the services of the competent employees including the petitioners from different Corporations and undertakings of the Government to fill up the vacant posts of Clerk in the Provident Fund Directorate by deputing them till the new appointments are made or decision is taken for absorption of the eligible persons.
On the said requisition, the different Government Undertakings sent the list of the persons. The names of the petitioners were also sent in that process.
The Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Government of Bihar on receipt of the list, deputed the petitioners and others in different District Provident Fund Offices. Letters with regard to their deputation were sent to the parent department of the employees.
Subsequently, the Provident Fund Directorate took steps for absorption of the eligible persons who were working in different District Provident Fund offices.
In the meanwhile, Jharkhand State was created by virtue .2.
of the provisions of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. Since the petitioners were posted and continuously working in the different District Provident Fund Offices in the State of Jharkhand, the Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Jharkhand considered the names of those employees on deputation in different district provident fund offices in Jharkhand for absorption.
The Government of Jharkhand, on due consideration of their qualification, eligibility and past service rendered in the department, took decision for absorption of services of those persons, on deputation in different provident fund offices.
Decision to that effect was taken by resolution no.1679 dated 3.8.2011 for absorption of those employees who were on deputation with certain conditions. However, some of the conditions were prejudicial to the employees including condition nos. 'ga' and 'gha' of paragraph-5 of the said resolution.
By the said clauses 'ga' and 'gha' those employees are sought to be brought under the new pension scheme implemented by resolution dated 9.12.2004, depriving them the benefits of past services and previous dues and entitlements.
Follow up order was issued by letter no.22 dated 19.9.2011 mentioning the above said conditions in paragraphs-3 and 4 of the said letter. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid two conditions.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were employees of the Government undertaking/Corporation and their services were pensionable from the date of joining the service. By the impugned resolution, the respondents are denying the said valuable right by bringing them under the new pension scheme which has been implemented recently.
Learned counsel submitted that imposing the said conditions and denying the benefits of their past services for the purpose of calculation of pension etc. is highly prejudicial, arbitrary and discriminatory. The second condition of denying their all previous service arrears/dues and benefits is atrocious, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory. The said conditions are liable to be quashed.
Counter affidavits have been filed disputing the petitioners' claims and opposing the writ petitions. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioners were not in the Government job earlier. By the impugned resolution they have been absorbed in Government services. The respondents have right to impose any condition for .3.
absorption in Government service. Since the petitioners were not the employees of the Government from the very beginning, their past services cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the pensionary benefits. The petitioners are also not entitled to get the dues/arrears and other benefits of their previous services. Those conditions for absorption are well considered and are not arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that exactly similar questions and the issues were involved in the case of Janardan Prasad and another in W.P.(S) no.6739 of 2012(supra). This Court, after through consideration of all the points involved in the said cases held that since the services of the petitioners were absorbed by the respondents by order dated 3.8.2011(Annexure-14), they have become part and parcel of the department absorbing them and their service partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees of the department.
It has been further held that the respondents, being the instrumentality of a welfare State, cannot act arbitrarily and inequitably. They cannot take undue advantage of the dominant position and impose arbitrary condition in the name of absorption of the petitioners in Government job. At any rate the employees cannot be put to a worse condition than what were before their absorption.
It has been held that the condition of denial of past services in calculating pensionary benefits, implementation of new pension scheme without the consent of the petitioners as well as the denial of their legitimate dues are wholly unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Clause-3 & 4 of the letter, contained in Memo no.1679 dated 3.8.2011(Annexure-14) has been quashed by order dated 30.04.2013 passed by this Court, in the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is also held in the said order that the order shall operate in respect of all similarly situated employees whose names find mentioned in the list. The names of the petitioners are mentioned in Annexure-14 and, as such, the said order is squarely applicable in the cases of the petitioners.
Learned J.C. to G.P.V, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has fairly admitted the said position and submitted that the petitioners' case is covered by the said decision of this Court in Janardan Prasad and others (W.P.(S) no.6739 of 2012) and analogous cases.
In view of the above, I.A. no.3766 of 2013 as well as W.P. .4.
(S) no.939 of 2012 are disposed of holding that the order dated 30.04.2013 passed in Janardan Prasad & Ors.(supra) shall have full application in this case and the said order shall fully operate in respect of these petitioners.
Accordingly, it is held that the condition of denial of past services in calculating pensionary benefits and implementation of new pension scheme as well as denial of their legitimate dues are wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal in view of scrapping Clause-3 & 4 of Annexure-14 by this Court in the case of Janardan Prasad & Ors. (supra).
Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled for computation of the period of their past service for the purpose of ACP benefits/promotion and all other purposes, relevant to the context.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) s.b.