Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

sums up the common grievances of these petitioners, it is appropriate to reproduce it hereunder:-

"In these batch of writ petitions the common grievance of the petitioners can be summed up as follows:-
"Petitioners herein, who were working under the Adult cum Non Formal Education Project in the erstwhile State of Bihar, were rendered surplus on closure of that project / scheme on 16.5.2001. Some of these petitioners or the original employees attained the age of superannuation thereafter, some of them died and some of them who had not reached the age of superannuation were absorbed by the Government of Jharkhand in different departments sometime in the year 2007 vide resolution dated 30.5.2007 issued by the Human Resources Development Department. In the notification of their absorption, there was a condition at clause 11 and 12 that the absorption of the surplus employees will be treated as fresh appointment and they will not get the benefit of seniority on the basis of their past service and also pay protection Incidentally, it is to be noted here in that petitioners herein were also claiming salary for the period after closure of the scheme in May 2001 till they were absorbed. That issue is no longer res-integra as the very question relating to the payment of arrears of salary in respect of such persons has now been settled by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & others Vrs. Asgar Ali & others passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) CC No.10361-10364 of 2014 dated 18.7.2014. The State- Respondents are making payment of salary in phase in terms of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated on behalf of learned additional A.G appearing on behalf of the State.

So far as issue relating to arrears of salary for the period 16.5.2001 till the date of their absorption under notification dated 30.5.2007 in the Government of Jharkhand is concerned, this is no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asgar Ali & others in Special Leave to Appeal (CC No. 10361-10364 of 2014) vide judgment dated 18.7.2014, has directed the State Government to release arrears of salary to these employees in phased manner within a period of 2 years.

25. In all the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners starting from Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No.8793 of 2005 in the case of Bhubaneshwar Mahto ; Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 in the case of Ila Sinha; Special Leave to Appeal(CC. No 3780 of 2011) in the case of Nirmala Kumari; Special Leave to Appeal (CC 19981 of 2011) in the case of Zahid Hussain & others, Special Leave Petitions preferred by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand were dismissed in limine by a non-speaking order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Ila Sinha, in fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1377 of 2011 vide judgment dated 2.10.2013 left the question of law open. It can therefore be safely said that the issue involved in the present reference is not one which has been rendered final on adjudication in any of these matters by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question therefore posed before this larger Bench is res integra and open for consideration i.e. whether the past services of such employees under the Adult Education cum Non-formal Education Scheme can be counted for the purpose of their seniority and pensionary benefits? and; whether the opinion of the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 188 of 2004, State of Jharkhand vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha or the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in the other line of cases such as Bhubneshwar Mahto, Ila Sinha, Zahid Hussain & others being L.P.A. No. 515 of 2004 , L.P.A. No. 359 of 2009 and L.P.A No.435 of 2010 respectively, is the correct view? It is relevant to mention here that the case of Bhubneshwar Mahto is distinguishable on facts as already discussed in the earlier paragraphs. Bhubneshwar Mahto was treated as regular employee of the State Government having been appointed in the year 1968 under the Government service, 10 years before the Adult Education Project was started in the year 1978, unlike cases of other persons who were appointed under the Adult Education / Non-formal Education Scheme itself.

Petitioners have also sought to rely upon the decision of the Government of Bihar under the circular bearing no. 1366 dated 15.7.2013 whereby it has approved the period of services between 1992-1998 as notional period for pensionary benefits without financial benefits. Petitioners have also placed reliance upon order passed in MJC Case No. 2884 of 1996 dated 14.12.2016 by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. This contempt petition was filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.5.1996 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 i.e. the Bihar State Adult & Non-formal Educational Employees Association & others Vrs. The State of Bihar; 1996(2) PLJR 394. According to present petitioners, Government of Jharkhand was also a party in the said contempt petition and in order to comply the order of the learned Division Bench dated 24.5.1996 had issued a resolution dated 2.12.2016. The learned Single Judge has held that absorption of such employees under resolution dated 30.5.2007 as fresh appointment along with the conditions incorporated therein, would mean that benefit of past service cannot be denied to such employees for the purpose of pensionary benefits. However, perusal of the said order shows that the School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand through its supplementary show cause enclosing the resolution dated 2.12.2016, conveyed that in terms of the Cabinet decision, 63 employees out of 161 who are still in service in July 2016 shall be absorbed on higher post carrying the scale of Rs.5000-8000 as per 5 th P.R.C and equivalent to 6th P.R.C in the scale of Rs. 9300-34800 and pleaded that order under contempt has been complied with. In this factual background, learned Single judge of the Patna High Court observed that the resolution apparently appeared to have some contradiction. The benefit of pay revision has to be given from July, 2016 so that they are not denied to the employees who have retired or died thereafter. It is further evident that the instant contempt petition was preferred alleging disobedience of the order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5036 of 1992 and other analogous cases. The legality, validity and correctness of the resolution dated 30.5.2007 whereunder these employees were absorbed in regular government service in Jharkhand, was neither under challenge nor within the scope of the contempt petition. The State of Jharkhand even in their show cause appears to have stuck to its stand that such absorption were treated as new appointment as also contained in the terms and conditions under resolution dated 30.5.2007. The contempt petition was disposed of by the order dated 14.12.2016 holding that the State of Jharkhand has substantially complied with the order under contempt. Therefore, the issue relating to legality and validity of the conditions incorporated in the resolution dated 30.5.2007 cannot be said to have been adjudicated upon in the contempt jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in M.J.C. No. 2884 of 1996. The issue is therefore res nova or res integra. Any decision of the Government of Bihar reckoning past services for the purposes of pensionary benefits taken after bifurcation of the parent State of Bihar in itself, even otherwise does not bind the Government of Jharkhand being a sovereign State in itself.