Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Rights Once Accrued Cannot Be Taken Away : Jharkhand High Court Quashes Pension Cancellation for Madarsa and Sanskrit School Employees

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant ruling, has annulled a government resolution that had canceled pension and gratuity benefits for employees of recognized non-government Madarsas and aided Sanskrit schools. The judgment delivered by Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak emphasized the mandatory compliance with constitutional requirements for executive actions and underscored the protection of legitimate expectations and accrued rights of the employees.

The petitioners, employees of 186 recognized non-government Madarsas and 12 aided Sanskrit schools, challenged the Resolution No. 1773 dated 21.06.2018 issued by the School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand. This resolution annulled the earlier Resolution No. 2020 dated 24.10.2014, which had granted them pension and gratuity benefits. The petitioners argued that the 2018 resolution violated their accrued rights and was not issued in compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution, as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor.

Compliance with Article 166: The court scrutinized the compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution, which mandates that all executive actions of a state must be expressed in the name of the Governor. The court noted, “The impugned resolution, issued merely under the signature of an Additional Secretary, fails to meet this constitutional requirement.” This deviation from established procedures, as followed in previous and subsequent resolutions, was a significant factor in the court’s decision to annul the resolution.

Witness Testimonies: Addressing the issue of creating a sub-class within a class, the court found the annulment of pension benefits for employees who retired between the impugned resolution (21.06.2018) and a subsequent resolution (14.10.2022) arbitrary. “Creating a sub-class within employees appointed before 30.11.2004 without rational basis violates the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution,” the judgment stated.

The court elaborated on the principles of legitimate expectation and the protection of accrued rights. Referencing several Supreme Court rulings, the judgment reiterated that benefits conferred by valid resolutions cannot be withdrawn unilaterally. “Rights accrued under a validly issued resolution cannot be negated without due process,” the bench noted, affirming the petitioners’ entitlement to pension and gratuity benefits.

Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak remarked, “The deviation from the constitutional requirement in issuing the impugned resolution renders it per se arbitrary and illegal. The State cannot whimsically withdraw accrued benefits without adherence to procedural mandates.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the resolution dated 21.06.2018 underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional compliance and protecting accrued rights. By mandating the State of Jharkhand to calculate and disburse pension and gratuity benefits to the petitioners within three months, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of legitimate expectations and procedural propriety in executive actions.

 Date of Decision: 17th May 2024

Satya Narayan Tiwary & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Similar News