DHANESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to count his service since 1964 when he joined and worked as Extra -Clerk for the purposes of payment of full pension.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, in brief, is that he had actually joined on ad -hoc basis in the year, 1964 and his name was entered in the service records/register in the year, 1967 and he was finally regularized in service in the year, 1981. The petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2003 and, according to him, he had completed over 30 years of service and is entitled to full pension. The petitioner further submits that even assuming 1967 as the cut off date, when his name was actually entered in the Office Register, he has completed 30 years of service and was, thus, entitled to full pension. He has further submitted that the denial of full pension is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the fact that the petitioner was appointed on ad -hoc basis in the year, 1964. Further they have submitted that there is no proof, filed by the petitioner to support his contention. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Extra -Clerk was neither treated as government servant nor was drawing any salary and was only paid remuneration of Rs. 2/ - per actual day worked under Order 29 of the Bihar Registration Manual, 1946 and, thus, at best the Extra -Clerk was a daily wager and nothing more. According to the respondents, the petitioner was appointed on 27.02.1981 and served at Gumla Sub -Registry, Gumla, from 27.02.1981 up to 11.02.1992 as a Clerk and was transferred to Sub -Registry Office, Simdega, on 12.02.1992 and, thereafter, he continued to work till retirement i.e. 31.01.2003. In the aforesaid background, the contention raised by the respondents that the petitioner has completed 30 years of service is not correct and, thus, he was not entitled for payment of full pension.