Calcutta HC Slams CWC for 'Bad & Illegal' Declaration of Child as 'Abandoned' Despite DNA Proof; Quashes Adoption Order, Mandates Fresh Inquiry With Biological Parents' Hearing 'Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Eclipsed By Parental Authority': Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹25 Lakh Compensation On Father And State For Unlawful Confinement Of Adult Women Over Voluntary Religious Conversion Co-Operative Bank Not Obligated To Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Non-Member Co-Operative Societies Under Section 194A(3)(v) Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Not Sufficient Ground For Externment; It Is An Extraordinary Measure To Be Used Sparingly: Karnataka High Court Good Conduct And Strength Of Character Always Lie In The Choices One Makes: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of RPF Constables For Suppressing Criminal Antecedents 'Time Is Of Extreme Essence': Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Public Procurement Tenders Over Belated Challenge And Laches "'Hanging Is Not Cruel, Torturous Or Degrading': Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Execution By Hanging Under CrPC & BNSS" 'Backdoor Entry Cannot Be Regularized By Judicial Sympathy': Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Absorptions And Repudiates Political Machinations In Public Employment Custodial Interrogation Indispensable In Cross-Border Drug Cases Involving Commercial Quantities, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'Cannot Take Advantage Of Your Own Wrong': Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce After Defying Restitution Decree Spousal Privacy Is Not Absolute: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Secretly Recorded Audio Evidence Admissible To Prove Adultery 'No Premium, No Risk': Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Section 64VB Insurance Act, Striking Down Retrospective Covers 'An Appeal Is Not Just A Statutory Right, It Is A Constitutional Right': Supreme Court Scraps High Court's Suo Motu Enhancement Of Life Sentence Sale With Condition To Repurchase Is Not A Mortgage: Gujarat High Court Tax Is On Use, Not On Wreckage: Kerala High Court Quashes ₹10 Lakh Demand, Rules Motor Vehicle Tax Cannot Be Levied On Accident-Wrecked Vehicles Not In Use Pecuniary Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Be Raised For The First Time In Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court 'Cannot Proceed Under SARFAESI If Dues Below ₹20 Lakhs': Punjab & Haryana High Court Protects Homeowners From Eviction, Issues Notice

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