2025:JHHC:34397 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.5893 of 2024 ----- Chitra Ray, W/o late Mrinal Kanti Sarkar, resident of 374, Pursottam Road, Julu Park, PO Hazaribagh, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi 3.The Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, through its Vice Chancellor, PO Sindoor, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh 4.The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, PO Sindoor, PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh 5.The Principal, K.B. Women’s College, near Budhwa Mahadeo Mandir, Nawab Ganj, PO and PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 6.The Principal, SSLNT Women’s College, Luby Circular Rd, Haripur, Kasturba Nagar, PO Dhanbad Hirapur SO, PS Hirapur, District Dhanbad 7.Principal Accountant General North Office Para, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to SC-II For VBU : Dr. A. K. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate …...... 12 /18.11.2025: Heard the parties. 2. It is very unfortunate that the Professor who worked for more than 31 years in the Vinoba Bhave University is denied her post retiral benefits on the ground that her services is not confirmed and she worked as an Adhoc. 3. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave of Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022 titled “State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel”. In the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court services were taken for 30 years on Adhoc basis and thereafter nothing was paid on account of pensionary benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme 2025:JHHC:34397 2 Court in the aforesaid case had categorically held that it is unreasonable to take work from an employee for 30 years and then denying the employee his pensionary benefit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as the welfare State, the State ought not to have taken such stand. Thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State to pay pensionary benefit to the respondent who was retired rendering 30 years. The case in hand is exactly similar. The petitioner has worked as an Adhoc Lecturer for 31 years. 4. Since the petitioner in this case has worked for 31 years and from the supplementary affidavit it is clear that the petitioner was lastly in the pay-scale Rs. 8,000-13,500/- and she was paid regular salary in the aforesaid pay-scale, I direct the respondent- State to pay all the pensionary benefit of the petitioner who has retired after rendering more than 31 years of service. The amount should be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 5. This writ application is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.11.2025 Tanuj/CP-2