Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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