IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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