MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees

19 September 2024 7:00 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High  Court Directs State to Count Service Period Prior to Regularization for Pension, Not Just From Date of Regularization

In a landmark judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has ruled in favor of petitioners seeking pension by counting their tenure as daily wage employees prior to their regularization. The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. N. Pathak on May 9, 2024, directs the state to consider the petitioners' full service period for pension benefits. This ruling has significant implications for daily wage employees across the state, reinforcing their rights to pension based on their entire service duration.

The case involves multiple writ petitions (W.P.(S) No. 474 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 4036 of 2012, and W.P.(S) No. 3274 of 2018) filed by Chandradeo Pandit and others against the State of Jharkhand and others. The petitioners, who were initially employed as daily wage workers between 1979 and 2011, were later regularized between 2009 and 2011. Following their retirements between 2014 and 2016, they sought pension benefits by including their service period prior to regularization.

Credibility of Past Service: The court underscored the importance of recognizing the petitioners' service period as daily wage employees. "The past service of daily wagers must be counted for pension benefits, not just from the date of regularization," the court stated. This view aligns with various judicial precedents asserting that pension is a right, not a bounty, earned through long service.

Judicial Precedents on Pension Rights: The judgment referenced several landmark cases, including Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, and S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri, which emphasized the right to pension as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The court reiterated that pension must be granted based on the entire service period, echoing the principle that regularization relates back to the initial appointment date.

The court discussed the principles of pension entitlement, stressing that pension is not a discretionary payment but a right. "Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him," the judgment noted. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the petitioners were only entitled to pension benefits from the date of their regularization.

Justice S. N. Pathak emphasized, "The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularized subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law."

The Jharkhand High Court's decision to count the petitioners' entire service period for pension benefits sets a significant precedent for the treatment of daily wage employees. By recognizing the past service of these employees, the court has reinforced the principle that pension is a right earned through years of service. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving pension rights, ensuring fair treatment for employees who have served as daily wage workers before their regularization.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024

Chandradeo Pandit and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

Latest Legal News