Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In March 2021, the Patna High Court decided an important case concerning pension rights and service benefits of a retired employee from the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED). The petitioner had a long career that began in 1980, and the issue before the Court was whether his service from the very beginning should be counted for pension and pay revision, or only from the date of his regularization in 2006.
Background of the Case
- The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in 1980 in a work-charge establishment at Bhagalpur.
- In 1989, he was transferred to Patna and posted at Masaurhi.
- In 2002, the government passed an order reverting many work-charge employees to the status of daily wagers. The petitioner was also reverted, despite his claim that he was appointed before 1985 and should not have been affected.
- In 2006, the government sanctioned 2,277 technical posts (such as Khalasi, Pump Operator, Electrician). The petitioner and others were regularized against these posts, with all consequential benefits.
- In 2015, the PHED gave him the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission, but only from April 1, 2007, instead of April 1, 2006 as he claimed.
- The petitioner retired in January 2017. Afterwards, he requested that his pension and retiral benefits be fixed counting his entire service from 1980, not just from 2006.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that he was unfairly treated when he was reverted to daily-wage status in 2002, while some of his batchmates were not. He claimed this was a violation of his right to equality. He further demanded:
- Pay revision benefits from 2006 instead of 2007.
- Pension and retiral benefits to be calculated from 1980 (his initial appointment) instead of 2006 (the date of regularization).
Respondent’s Argument
The government countered by citing resolutions and policies:
- The Finance Department’s Resolution of 2013 clarified that the period between 2002 and 2006 (when employees were daily wagers) would still count as work-charge service, and ACP/MACP benefits would be granted accordingly.
- A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Amrika Devi v. State of Bihar (2019) held that for pension purposes, only the regularized service counts, but for ACP/MACP and promotions, the entire work-charge period can be counted.
- The petitioner had already received ACP benefits and his pay had been revised accordingly.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For government employees: This ruling reaffirms that pension can only be claimed from the date of regularization against a substantive and permanent post, not from the date of initial appointment in a work-charge establishment.
- For work-charge and daily wage employees: Even long years of service before regularization may not fully count towards pension, but those years are recognized for ACP/MACP benefits and promotions.
- For equality claims: The Court clarified that the petitioner’s situation had already been addressed by government resolutions and the Amrika Devi Full Bench ruling, so no further relief was required.
- For the State Government: This decision supports its stand that pension must strictly follow statutory rules, while other service benefits can take into account work-charge service.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to pay revision benefits from 2006 instead of 2007
• Decision: No.
• Reasoning: The 2015 order granting pay revision from 2007 was consistent with government resolutions and upheld by higher judicial precedent. - Whether the petitioner’s pension should be calculated from 1980 (initial appointment) or 2006 (regularization)
• Decision: From 2006 only.
• Reasoning: Under Bihar Pension Rules (Rules 58 and 59), only service under government on a substantive and permanent post qualifies for pension. The petitioner became regularized only in 2006. - Whether years worked in the work-charge establishment could be considered
• Decision: Yes, but only for ACP/MACP benefits and promotion, not for pension calculation.
• Reasoning: The Amrika Devi Full Bench decision allowed counting of work-charge service for promotions and ACP benefits, but not as qualifying service for pension.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Smt. Amrika Devi & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, 2019 (4) PLJR 354 (Full Bench, Patna High Court).
Case Title
Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 15504 of 2018
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 238
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
- For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Standing Counsel-4
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTU1MDQjMjAxOCMxI04=-y6bDbd–ak1—-am1–Fvk=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
