…Appellant(s)
Versus The State of Bihar and Ors….Appellant(s) Versus The State of Bihar and Ors.
The State Government came out with the Rules from time to time to regularize the services of the work charged employees and also how the work charged services to be counted / considered. 4 16 2.5 Though the original writ petitioners were held to be entitled to the pension by taking into account the services rendered as work charged for the purpose of qualifying period of service for grant of pension, they challenged Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013 to the extent it provided that for the purpose of counting of pension, regular service of one year for the work charged service of every five years shall be taken into consideration. The Larger Bench by the impugned judgment and order has answered the reference in following terms:-
“(a) With respect to addition of the number of years of service rendered in a work charged tenure to the service under regular 5 16 establishment, for the purposes of making the service of such regular employees pensionable, there is practically no substantial difference in the pronouncements of the two Division Benches in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) and Binod Kumar (supra).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-bail-granting-criteria-in-criminal-cases/
For the purposes of pension, only such period from the work-charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee which has been regularized to qualify him for pension. 1
It is submitted that the respective appellants were as such appointed not on a particular project but the appointment was for a work, which was regular and periodical in nature for a monthly salary and they were working in the Government department. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the present appeals has vehemently submitted that in fact taking into consideration the fact that despite having worked for a longer period as work charged, thereafter when they were regularized and they were found short of qualifying service for pension and on that ground, they may not be denied the pension solely on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension, a conscious decision has been taken by the State in favour of such employees providing that for the purpose of qualifying service, the services rendered as work charged is to be counted to make them eligible for pension. It is submitted that therefore, the Larger Bench 8 16 of the High Court has rightly observed and held that for the purpose of pension, only such period from the work charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee to qualify him for pension and while adding such period of work charged tenure, the modus operandi for counting would be one year for every five years of service rendered under work charged establishment and if that also leaves some shortfall, then further number of years of work charged tenure can be taken / added for making the service of the employee pensionable.
It is submitted that while considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the aforesaid Rules, and denying total work charged service to be counted as qualifying service for pension, this Hon’ble Court has observed and held that it will be unfair, unjust and impermissible to deny them the pension and to that it is observed and held that the work charged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the entire service rendered as work charged under the work charged establishment shall have to be counted and/or considered for the determination of the amount of pension after the work charged employees are regularized under the Rules, 2013? Even then if the minimum requirement of 10 years of service for pension is not met under the old rules, then minimum service shall be added to give advantage thereof.” 11 16 6.1 Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013 as such can be said to be beneficial to such work charged employees, whose services have been regularized subsequently. Therefore, to make such work charged employees eligible for pension, Rule 5(v) provides that if any work charged employee, whose services have been regularized under the Rules, 2013, is short of qualifying service, to the extent of such shortage of qualifying service, the services rendered as work charged to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment.
That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.
Therefore, this Court has observed and held that their services rendered as work charged shall be considered / counted for qualifying service. 15 16 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Case Title: UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2023 INSC 461)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003155-003155 / 2023
