RANCHI, India, March 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 3:

1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners have worked for more than ten years and thereafter, the order of regularization was passed on 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier service which the petitioner has rendered to the respondents be calculated for the purpose of post retiral benefits.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004 at paragraph 1 has held as under:-

"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand."

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 at paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: "Save as otherwise provided in these rules". If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account."

5. Considering the aforesaid two judgments, I am of the opinion that the earlier service rendered by the petitioners should be counted for the purpose of post retiral benefits of the petitioners.

6. So far as arrears of salary is concerned, since the petitioners have been regularized in the year, 2023, they cannot claim regular scale prior to the aforesaid date.

7. So far as pay scale of the petitioners is concerned, if they have any grievance, it will be open to them to file a representation before the appropriate authority who will consider the same and pass a reasoned order as per law.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv9ETnGc2a4iEyPXjAfCbi40S3B0jq0OakRk35bdkHQqs&caseno=WPC/486/2026&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010003912026&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.