Shripati Mohali and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay them pension on account of their service period completed from November, 1999, along with statutory interest as well as penal interest.

From the rival submissions, the admitted facts are as follows:

The petitioners, who were appointed on the post of Chowkidaar under the State Government, have rendered a total period of 9 years and 10 months of service, whereafter they have retired.

Interpreting the Circular No. 1852 dated 19.04.1990 (Annexure-1), issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioners have claimed that as per the interpretation of the Circular, the fraction of the period more than 6 months, has to be treated and rounded of as full 6 months period and the total period of 9 years 10 months, has to be treated as 10 years of service which is the minimum qualifying period of pension of the Government employee.

Elaborating the grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the same interpretation, the concerned authorities of the Respondents have already granted the benefit of pension to similarly situated several persons including one Pachu Rawani and others, whose actual service period was below 10 years, but rounded of as 10 years by the decision of the concerned authorities of the State Government. Learned Counsel adds that by the same standards, the petitioners should also be deemed to have completed the qualifying period of service and treated as eligible for pension.

Counsel for the Respondent-State submits that though the pension papers of the petitioners were forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, but in reply, the State Government has been informed that the petitioners have not completed the requisite number of qualifying years of service for their eligibility to get pension and, therefore, no pension has been fixed for the petitioners. Learned Counsel concedes however, that no specific reply has been given to the contentions of the petitioners as mentioned in para-13 of the writ application, referring to the benefit of pension given to some other employees, who were similarly situated like, the petitioners.

Shri S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Accountant General, explains that the interpretation of the provisions of the Circular (Annexure-1), cannot be made in the manner suggested, and claimed by the petitioners, for the purpose of relaxing the qualifying period of pensionable service of the government employees. Reading out the relevant paragraphs of the Circular, learned Counsel explains that the procedure as laid down and explained, relates only to the procedure for computing the amount of pension and gratuity and not for computing the eligibility of the employee for pension. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the provisions of Rule 203 of the Pension Rules, the discretion is entirely with the State Government to interpret the Rules and Circulars issued by it and it is not for the office of the Accountant General to make any interpretation of any Circular issued by the State Government. Learned Counsel adds that since the petitioners were found entitled to payment of gratuity, the matter was considered on the basis of the papers forwarded by the petitioners'' employee, and whereafter the authority slip for the release of amount of gratuity of the petitioners have already been issued on the basis of the same Circular, to which the petitioners have referred to and relied upon.

Upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that after the matter relating to the petitioners'' claim for pension was returned by the office of the Accountant General, a fresh consideration was made by the concerned authorities of the Respondents and a final decision has been taken that since the petitioners have not completed the full 10 years of minimum service, they are not eligible for pension. Further, it also appears that no reply has been given by the Respondent-State Government as to how and under what circumstances, has the benefit of pension being extended to other employees similarly situated as the petitioners. A definite answer on this issue was expected from the Respondent-State since the same has been raised specifically in the petitioners'' writ application at part-13.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities of the Respondents to take an appropriate decision regarding the proper interpretation of the Circular (Annexure-1), in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 203 of the Pension Rules and also to consider as to whether the benefit which was extended to the other similarly situated retired employees, was in accordance with the proper interpretation of the Circular (Annexure-1) and if so, whether the same benefit could be extended to the petitioners. The concerned authorities of the Respondents may also take an appropriate decision in the light of the powers vested in them for payment of compensatory pension under the provisions of Rule 107(A) of the Pension Rules.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be give to the counsel for the Respondents.