Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sheela devi in Amrika Devi And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 2 September, 2019Matching Fragments
49. Having carefully scanned the opinion of Brother Justice Ashutosh Kumar who has given a meticulous exposition of the Circulars and the Rules which have led to certain dichotomies in judicial pronouncement rendered by two Division Benches of this Court, I find myself in full agreement with his opinion and would also like to pen down my views in this regard.
50. What was observed by a learned single Judge while referring the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative opinion was the recent judgment dated 04.01.2018 rendered in the case of Binod Patna High Court CWJC No.10063 of 2012 dt. 02-09-2019 Kumar and others Vrs. The State of Bihar and others in L.P.A. No.12674 of 2017. The Division Bench while interpreting and taking into consideration the Work-Charged Establishment Revised Service Condition (Repeal) Rules, 2013, had given a considered opinion that the period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment would be counted to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period of service for grant of pension which shall be made by adding of that period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment. This opinion ran contrary to the earlier decision of this Court rendered in another Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Sheela Devi and other analogous cases (Civil Review No.210 of 2014, arising out of LPA No.416 of 2013, vide judgment dated 21.09.2015). In this case, the Court, while considering the issue with regard to the counting of the period of Work-Charge service for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service, had held that the entire period spent under the Work- Charged Establishment be taken into account for Patna High Court CWJC No.10063 of 2012 dt. 02-09-2019 calculating the pensionary benefits. Thus, the latter decision in the case of Binod Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held that the entire period spent under the Work-Charged Establishment would not be taken into account, upsets the pronouncement in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) and created a totally new picture with a divergent view and necessitated an authoritative pronouncement in this matter, as in view of the earlier judgment, those who were under Work- Charged Establishment had to await the decision, whereas those whose cases were under consideration, were stuck with the latter decision rendered in the light of Circular No.10710 dated 17.10.2013.
54. I have also carefully perused the case of Sheela Devi, widow of one such work-charged employee, whose services were earlier engaged in 1988 but reverted to muster roll in 2002, came to be regularised by virtue of the decision of a 3-Member Committee in terms of the direction of Uma Devi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. His regularization in 2006 made him eligible to the benefit of CPF Scheme of 01.09.2005. It was held by the learned single Judge Patna High Court CWJC No.10063 of 2012 dt. 02-09-2019 that the husband of Sheela Devi being an earlier appointee than 2006, was not amenable to the CPF Scheme and was eligible for family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment etc. The judgment of the single Judge was put to test in LPA No.416 of 2013, but the challenge placed by the State Government was rejected and finally the Division Bench while rejecting the challenge placed by the State Government and taking into note the various stages of liberalisation extended to Work-Charged Establishment in granting pension to them and the methodology of counting their service so as to bring the employee in the framework of qualifying service so as to entitle him to pension rejected LPA No.416 of 2013. The SLP also met with a similar fate, but with the oblique method of evading the contempt proceedings, the State filed a review which, however, was also rejected as judgment in LPA No.416 of 2013 having been affirmed by the Apex Court, had attained finality and a co-ordinate Bench could not sit in appeal over the same.
60. I also find myself in full agreement with the view expressed my Brother who has clarified that Patna High Court CWJC No.10063 of 2012 dt. 02-09-2019 the ratio of the judgment in Sheela Devi and Binod Kumar both aimed at achieving the same object and granting only "qualifying period" and it was purely in ignorance of the Rules and Circulars that the Review Court could not appreciate the true import of the key- words in the Circular.