Unexplained Possession Of Stolen Ornaments Soon After Murder Attracts Presumption Of Guilt Under Section 114 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Identical Pay Scale Cannot Be Basis To Confer Benefits Meant Specifically For Scientists: Gauhati High Court Suit For Partition Not Maintainable Without Seeking Cancellation Of Registered Partition Deed Signed By Plaintiff: Karnataka High Court Law Officers Have No Vested Right To Complete 3-Year Tenure, State Can Terminate Services Early: Orissa High Court Carpenter With Amputated Leg Suffers 100% Functional Disability As Trade Requires Squatting & Sitting Position: Supreme Court Fatal Fall Into Dry Canal During Scuffle Attracts Section 304 Part II IPC: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence To Period Undergone Minor Rape Victim Permitted To Terminate 28-Week Pregnancy: Delhi High Court Cites Right To Bodily Autonomy Under Article 21 Investigation Initiated Without FIR Registration Illegal; Prosecution Documents Prepared After Trap Proceedings 'Table Investigation': Andhra Pradesh High Court Successive Writ Petitions On Same Cause Of Action Barred By Constructive Res Judicata: Bombay High Court Dismisses BPCL's Challenge To Octroi Levy Court Fees Must Be Refunded If Commercial Suit Is Rejected For Non-Compliance With Pre-Institution Mediation: Calcutta High Court Deduction Under Section 80-I Must Be Computed On Profits And Gains Without Reducing Investment Deposit Claim Under Section 32AB: Gujarat High Court Employee’s Right To Appeal Not Lost If Disciplinary Action Initiated By Higher Authority Provided Further Appeal Lies To Superior Body: Kerala High Court Preceding 10-Year Period For Charge Sheets Mandatory To Invoke 'Organized Crime' Under Section 111 BNS: J&K High Court Grants Bail PIL Petitioners Doubted By Court Must Annex Previous Adverse Orders In Future Filings: Kerala High Court Shifting Drug Traffickers To Distant States Necessary To Disrupt Supply Chains: Calcutta High Court Upholds PITNDPS Detention

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.

Latest Legal News