2025:JHHC:28463 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7758 of 2017 ------- 1. Nabin Kumar Jha son of Late Shiv Shankar Jha, permanent resident of Chiragora, Hiarapur, P.O. Hirapur, P.S. Dhanbad Sadar, District Dhanbad. 2. Ramashray Prasad, son of H.N. Prasad, resident of at Khamar Para, Ray Lane (Near Barbari Tola), P.S. Bansberia, P.S. Chinsurah, District Hoogaly (W.B.) ...… Petitioner Versus (1) The State of Jharkhand. (2) The Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Dhurwa (in front of Project Building, Dhurwa) P.O.Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. (3) The Joint Commissioner, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Dhurwa (in front of Project Building, Dhurwa) P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. .…. Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, Adv. For the Respondent :Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, S.C.(L&C)-III ------- 19/Dated:09.09.2025 1. The instant writ application has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ/s order/s, direction/s commanding upon the respondents to issue fresh office orders absorbing the petitioners on their original clerical cadre/class-III Post, upon which they were working in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation as also directing the respondents to give the same pay scale and same salary upon which they were working after quashing the office order Nos. 130 & 132 (Annexure-4 & 4/1) 133 respectively dated 31.10.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 and be further pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondents to pay the consequential benefits like arrears of salary on account of 5th 6th & 7th Pay Revision implement by Govt. of Jharkhand since 01.07.2004 and pay the correct salary as per 7th Pay Commission Report adopted by State. 2025:JHHC:28463 2 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners summits that he confines his argument only on the question of financial benefits, i.e., ACP/MACP, and other benefits as per the applicable pay revision. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further draws attention of this Court towards the judgment passed in WP(S) No. 277 of 2018 with analogous cases and submits that in the said case it has been held that the Petitioners of those cases were entitled for pension, taking into consideration the past services rendered by them, and accordingly benefits accruing to the Petitioners by virtue of their earlier services were directed to be given to the Petitioners of those cases. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel fairly submits that now the Petitioners are not much interested on the nomenclature as to whether they would be absorbed on which post but they are only interested in the financial benefits, and at present, the grievance of the Petitioners is with respect to scale of 7th PRC, ACP/MACP and other applicable financial benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents fairly submits that it is to be verified from original records as to whether the benefits for which the Petitioners are entitled have already been extended to them or not. Accordingly, Petitioners may be directed to approach the 2nd Respondent along with all relevant documents, and if any financial upgradation/ACP/ MACP or other financial benefits as per the applicable rules and regulation has not been paid, then the same shall certainly be extended to them shortly. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the limited submissions of Ld. Counsel for the rival parties; it appears that in WP(S) 2025:JHHC:28463 3 No. 277 of 2018 with analogous cases, this Court after relying several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other Courts, have given a categorical finding that the Petitioners of that case were entitled for pension, taking into consideration the past services rendered by them. For brevity paragraph nos.9-21 are quoted herein below:- (9) Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in these writ petitions save and except that the past service of the petitioners can be considered for pension for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (S) No.2115 of 2015 with the same prayer for granting the benefit of pay revision as per 5 th Pay Revision Commission’s report with effect from 01.01.1997 and 6 th Pay Revision Commission’s report with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits and also for payment of arrears of salary and difference of retiral benefits arising out of revision of pay scale, such as, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. (ii) This Court after considering the evidence dismissed the writ application observing therein, “........ The petitioners have tended to rely on certain absorptions to further their claim but being employees of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation prior to absorption/adjustment in the Transport Department, their rights do not change overnight. The adjustment has been made on the basis of the report of Arbitration Committee and the agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand with respect to bifurcation of assets and liabilities of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioners cannot expect any wind fall merely because of such adjustment in the Transport Department.” (10) In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors [Civil Appeal No.13372 of 2015 and the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their pensionary rights and admittedly the past service rendered by the petitioners has to be counted for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. (11) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v Mangal Singh and others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 702 has held as under: - “34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. .....” (12) The Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held as under: - “31. ... ... pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a value right vesting in a government servant.” (13) In the case of Poonamal v Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “7. ... ... pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right.” 2025:JHHC:28463 4 (14) In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held; “25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement.” (15) This Court in the case Elisa Lakra v State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 1693 of 2012] vide order 31.07.2013 held as under: - “21. Since few of the petitioners have already retired, the respondents shall compute the pensionable service from the date of initial appointment of such petitioners and not from the date of their absorption and shall pay the retiral dues and other arrears accordingly. 22. The respondents shall also compute their past services for the purpose of giving ACP benefits / promotion, as the case may be and for their service dues and arrears and pay the same to the petitioners within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” (16) In the case of Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors v. State of Jharkhand & Ors [W.P. (S) No.939 of 2012] this Court has held; “... ... Accordingly, it is held that the condition of denial of past services in calculating pensionary benefits and implementation of new pension scheme as well as denial of their legitimate dues are wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal ... ... Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled for computation of the period of their past service for the purpose of ACP benefits/promotion and all other purposes, relevant to the context.” (17) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand v. Dadan Prasad Singh and others [L.P.A. No.340 of 2013 & analogous cases] the order of learned Single Judge passed in Elecius Lakra (supra) was upheld and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits taking into consideration the past service of the petitioners. (18) The Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand v Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors in Civil Appeal No.13372 of 2015 while dismissing the appeal of the State of Jharkhand has clearly observed, “Pension and retiral benefits as also the arrears shall be calculated giving the benefit of High Court judgment, within a period of six months.” (19) Hon’ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 and other analogous cases decided on 12.12.2017 taking into consideration the order passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs Bir Kuar Paswan & Ors has held, “In view of the aforesaid, we allow all these appeals, quash the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7702 of 201 and other analogous cases and direct the State of Bihar to grant benefit to each of the appellants herein by counting services as rendered by them in the Boards, Corporations and Public Sector Undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the pensionary benefit after counting such service in the Boards or Corporations.” (20) In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has also held; “46. The term “pension” has been defined in American Jurisprudence 2d, Vol. 60 at p. 879 as thus: “However, by modern usage, the ‘pension’ is not restricted to pure gratuities. Thus, it has been held that a pension paid to a governmental employee for long and efficient service is not an emolument the payment of which is barred by a State constitutional provision, but is a deferred portion of the compensation earned for services render. ... A pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payments provided by an employer, is paid in 2025:JHHC:28463 5 consideration of past services, and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expense of living. ” 47. The concept of “pension” has been discussed in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn. (Reissue), Vol. 16, Parra 400 as thus: “Meaning of ‘pension’: ‘Pension’ means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme or arrangement having its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing them with retirement benefits.... ‘Pension’ does not include: (i) a payment to an employee which consists solely of a return of his own contributions, with or without interest; (ii) that part of a payment to an employee which is attributable solely to additional voluntary contributions by that employee made in accordance with the scheme or arrangement; (iii) a periodical payment or lump sum, insofar as that payment or lump sum represents compensation under the statutory compensation schemes and is payable under a statutory provision, whether made or passed before, on or after 31-7-1978.” 48. The concept of “pension” has also been considered in Corpus Juris Secundu, Vol. 70, at p. 423 as thus: “A pension is a periodical allowance of money granted by the Government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services, or of loss or injury sustained in the public service. A pension is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants, and it presupposes the continued life of the recipient.” 49. To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied.” (21) As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for pension taking into consideration the past service rendered by them. Benefits accruing to the petitioners by virtue of their earlier services be also given to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. In the instant case also, the Petitioners were originally appointed by Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and subsequently, after bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, their services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand under transport department. 2025:JHHC:28463 6 Therefore, in the light of judgement referred to herein above, they are certainly entitled for the financial benefits calculating the same from their date of initial appointment. In other words, they are entitled for their past services for calculation of their financial benefits/upgradation. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the Petitioners to approach the 2nd Respondent individually along with all the relevant documents and the order passed in WP(S) No.277 of 2018 with analogous cases. The moment, respective petitioners would approach the 2nd Respondent, the concerned Respondent shall verify the documents, taking into consideration the law laid down in the above referred case, calculate the financial benefits after calculating the past services of the Petitioners, what they rendered before the erstwhile employer, and extend the financial benefit to them, as per applicable Rules and Regulations, if the same has not been paid to them till date. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of respective representations. 7. Consequently, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of with the directions and observations as stated above. Pending I.As., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-