This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, revolves around a dispute concerning the pension benefits of several employees of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) in Bihar. The petitioners, Rambriksh Paswan, Md. Muslim, and Kameshwar Paswan, challenged a decision by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar that affected how their past service was calculated for pension eligibility.
Background:
The petitioners were initially hired on a "Muster roll" (a temporary work arrangement) as Nalkup Khalasi (pump operators) in 1979 and 1980. They were later appointed as Work Charge Nalkup Khalasi, and eventually promoted to Nalkup Mistri (pump mechanics). In 2002, due to a government directive, they were temporarily reverted to muster roll status. This decision was challenged in court, leading to a policy decision to regularize the services of employees working under the Work Charge Establishment. The petitioners' services were eventually regularized in November 2006.
The Dispute:
The core of the dispute lies in how the employees' prior service under the Work Charge Establishment should be counted towards their pension benefits. The Finance Department, in a resolution dated October 17, 2013, stipulated that for pension calculations, one year of regular service would be equivalent to five years of service under the Work Charge Establishment. The employees argued that their entire period of service under the Work Charge Establishment should be considered, as per an earlier Finance Department letter from March 31, 2004. They contended that the 2013 resolution unfairly diminished their pension entitlements.
Arguments Presented:
- Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners' counsel argued that the rules in effect at the time they were initially employed (1981-82) should apply to their case. They cited a previous court ruling which stated that while the entire service under Work Charge Establishment might not be counted for qualifying service, it should be considered when making it pensionable.
- State's Argument: The State's counsel argued that the 2013 resolution was a consolidation of all previous resolutions and should be applied uniformly. They referenced a 1987 resolution stating that the period under Work Charge Establishment should only be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. They also pointed to a previous court order that upheld the validity of the 2013 resolution.
Court's Decision:
The High Court ultimately ruled against the petitioners, dismissing their writ petition. The court found that the prevailing resolutions clearly indicated that the period under Work Charge Establishment should only be counted for qualifying service for pension. The court referenced a previous Full Bench decision that interpreted earlier circulars and concluded that they did not mandate counting the entire service period under Work Charge Establishment for pension purposes. The court also noted that the 2013 resolution provided a "beneficent measure" to address any shortfall in the qualifying period for pension eligibility. Finally, the court observed that the petitioners had already completed the qualifying period of service for pension.
In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the 2013 resolution, affirming that the service under Work Charge Establishment should only be considered for determining pension eligibility, not for calculating the full pension amount.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMzA3NCMyMDE5IzEjTg==-SxoSjvSPiLA=
