Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case centers on a legal dispute between the State of Bihar and the widow of a deceased work-charged employee, who had served in the Minor Irrigation Department for over 22 years. Initially appointed on a temporary basis in 1979, he was later formally absorbed as a Tube-well Operator under the Work-Charged Establishment on a fixed pay scale from 1st December 1981. He continued in that capacity, receiving revised pay scales and multiple transfers, until his death on 16th October 2007.
The State challenged a Single Judge’s earlier order that allowed the widow to receive family pension. According to the State, since the deceased had served only 5 years as a “regular” employee in a permanent capacity, he did not meet the mandatory 10-year threshold for eligibility under the existing pension rules.
However, the High Court disagreed with this argument. It referred to a precedent set in the case of Mobina Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2019), which clarified that a work-charged employee who has completed 10 or more years of continuous service on a single post is eligible for pension benefits. Further, the judgment clarified that if such an employee dies, their family is entitled to family pension.
The Court found that the deceased employee had rendered 22 years of continuous service in the same capacity, even though he was technically part of the work-charged establishment and was not formally regularized in service. His service book had been opened in 1986, and the State had acknowledged his long tenure and made several posthumous payments to the widow, including GPF, arrears, and leave encashment.
Given these facts, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the widow is entitled to family pension under the principles laid down in the Mobina Khatoon judgment.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment holds significant implications for thousands of work-charged employees in Bihar and their families. It reinforces the legal view that actual years of continuous service — not merely formal regularization — should determine eligibility for pension benefits.
For families of deceased employees who may not have been regularized but who rendered long-term, uninterrupted service, this judgment serves as a beacon of hope and legal recognition. The State may also need to reconsider its policies and administrative interpretations regarding pension eligibility for work-charged staff.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether work-charged employees with over 10 years of continuous service are entitled to pension/family pension?
- Yes, the Court upheld that such employees are entitled to pension benefits.
- Does lack of formal regularization defeat the right to family pension?
- No, if the employee served continuously for over 10 years, even under a work-charged status.
- Was the widow of the deceased employee entitled to family pension?
- Yes, given that the employee had served for over 22 years.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Mobina Khatoon v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 (1) PLJR 1015
Case Title
The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sushila Devi
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No.1586 of 2016 in CWJC No.11708 of 2008
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 180
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, GP26 — for the Appellants (State of Bihar)
[Name not mentioned] — for the Respondent
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNTg2IzIwMTYjMSNO—am1—-am1–LbcWlY8o4=
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.
