BINDESHWARI JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner initially prayed for payment of arrears of his retiral benefits. During the pendency of the present writ petition, all admissible retiral dues were paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter to the petitioner vide memo no. SKMU/Pension/546/09 dated 21.11.2009 informing inter alia that the admissible date of joining of the petitioner in service shall be counted from 05.11.1966 for the purpose of fixation of UGC pay-scale on the post of Professor. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 21.11.2009, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1238 of 2010 and prayed for suitable amendment in the writ petition. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2010 and accordingly, the amendment in the prayer of the writ petition was carried out. Thus, the only prayer which is surviving in the present writ petition is for quashing the impugned letter dated 21.11.2009 issued under the signature of respondent no. 4 by reasons of which the period of service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension was taken from 05.11.1966.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of "Lecturer" of Political Science, Sahebganj College, Sahebganj on the post of one Janardan Pandey, who was on leave vacancy with effect from 09.09.1964. The petitioner continued to work on the said post on temporary basis till Janardan Pandey re-joined on 09.09.1966. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the fifth sanctioned post of "Lecturer" of Political Science in the said college. Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.11.1966 issued by the University Service Commission, the concurrence for the appointment of the petitioner was given with effect from the issuance of the said date i.e., 05.11.1966. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner worked on temporary basis for the period from 09.09.1964 to 08.09.1966, his initial date of joining in service should be treated as 09.09.1964 for the purpose of fixation of his pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that any person who works on a post on temporary basis without any break till he is regularly appointed, the period during which he worked temporarily should be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pension. The respondent no. 4 while issuing the impugned letter dated 21.11.2009 has not disclosed any reason as to why the admissible date of joining of the petitioner in service has been treated as 05.11.1966 in place of 09.09.1964.