SHYAMKANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Holding that one of the conditions under Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 is not satisfied; petitioner's service was not regularised, the respondent-Secretary, Department of Industries by order dtd. 14/8/2014 has rejected the claim for pension and other post-retiral benefits to the petitioner. The respondent-authority has, however, observed that claim of the petitioner shall be considered after the rule for regularisation pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5924 of 2003 is framed.

(2.) Contending that regularisation of the petitioner's service who has worked for more than 32 years was responsibility of the employer, Mr. Md. Jalisur Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on superannuation of the petitioner from service he is entitled for pension and other post-retiral benefits.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Store Keeper on 6/5/1980 in the pay-scale of Rs.220.004-240-E.B.-5-290-E.B.-5-315 and he joined the said post on 15/5/1980 in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chapra. His service book was opened on 22/12/1980 and his pay-scale was revised on 16/2/1982, 1/1/1986, 1/1/1996 and 1/1/2006. He has been given benefits under 6th pay-revision w.e.f. 1/1/2006 and he has been placed under P.B. 5200-20200 grade-pay of Rs.2,400.00, pursuant to resolution of the Finance Department dtd. 28/2/2009. When after his superannuation from service on 31/8/2012 pension and other post-retiral benefits were not paid to him, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2859 of 2013. In the writ proceeding on the statement made on behalf of the respondents, that petitioner's claim which was pending before the respondent-authority by that time shall be decided if he files a fresh representation, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dtd. 2/7/2013. By this order this Court has ordered payment of compensatory interest @ 10% in addition to statutory interest, if claim of the petitioner is found admissible. In purported compliance of this order the respondent-Secretary has passed the impugned order contained in Memo dtd. 14/8/2014.