SITARAM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the writ petitioners in the batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(S) No. 4110 of 2013 (Bholanath Hansda @ Bhola Hansda Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) decided by this Court vide Judgment dated 16 th June, 2017 is the Review Petitioner herein. The reference made to the Full Bench in the aforesaid batch of the writ petitions were answered in the following terms:

(2.) The review petitioner has endeavored to make out a case that the impugned Judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of record as it has failed to consider the letters of his appointment at Annexure-1 dated, 08 th September, 1976, whereunder he was appointed on the post of Lascar in the NCC, Directorate. It has also failed to take into account the fact that the petitioner had joined the Adult Education Department after being relieved from the post of Lascar in the NCC, Directorate. Reference is also made to Office Order No. 749 dtd. 25/6/1979 i.e. the appointment letter of the petitioner which refers to him Additional Employee under the NCC at the time of his joining in the Adult Education Department.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that these documents were evidence of his service under the State Government prior to his employment under the Adult Education Department. As such, his case also falls in the category of the four writ petitioners mentioned at Para 48 of the impugned Judgment, who claim to have been appointed in government service prior to start of Adult Education Project in the year 1978. Their cases have to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench on the basis of their individual facts. In case these facts are properly considered, this petitioner would also be entitled to the pensionary benefits.