2026:JHHC:18951 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5765 of 2024 ….….. Parmeshwar Sah, aged about 63 years, son of Panchu Sah, resident of P.W.D. Colony, C. H. Area, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Kalimali, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Chotanagpur Circle, Ranchi, G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jamshedpur, G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 5. Office of Principle Accountant General, through Accountant General, Jharkhand having office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv Ms. Nidhi Kumari, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to GA-III For the Acct. Gen. : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv Ms. Sharon Toppo, Adv C.A.V. ON: 11/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant benefit of pension and other post retiral dues, that is pending in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance to his retirement from work charge establishment, since he has completed more than 15 years of temporary services, and is entitled to get the relief as such, in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2005 (3) JCR 9 (Jhr) (F.B.); (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus considering the petitioner to be as regularized employee and release the entire pensionary benefits in his favour, in pursuance to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 2026:JHHC:18951 2 Para-36; (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits of petitioner, on counting of the entire past services, as per the Govt. resolution dated 17.07.2023, and thus, count him in, as a beneficiary of old pension scheme; (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the arrears of salary for the period between February 2019 to January 2020 and January 2021 to February 2021, the period for which, he has rendered his services but the salary has not been released in his favour; 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was earlier appointed on the post of Choukidar/ Majdoor, in the pay scale of Rs.350-425/- on work charge basis on 04.01.1986 by the Superintending Engineer. The appointment letter is annexed as Annexure-1 of the writ application. Thereafter, he has superannuated from services in the month of February, 2021. During his entire tenure, the Petitioner worked as a work charge employee against a regular and sanctioned post. He was granted the permanent pay scale and received increments which is evident from the fixation of pay that is maintained in Form-B of Govt of Jharkhand fixation of pay (Annexure 2). 4. The petitioner also represented for payment of salary for the periods from February 2019 to January 2020 and January 2021 to February 2021, during which he rendered services but was not paid his salary. The Petitioner represented before the Respondents for release of pensionary benefits; however, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to make payment of pensionary as well as other post retiral dues, as he has completed more than 15 years of services in temporary establishment. 2026:JHHC:18951 3 5. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Jharkhand High Court passed in the case of Ram Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2005 (3) JCR 09 (JHR) (FB). In this judgment, the Full Bench has decided at para-17(i) that the work charge employees who have completed more than 05 years of services, they are entitled to be placed in permanent (regular) establishment. Thereafter, at para-17(iii), it has further been held that those work charge employees who continued for 15 years and more, shall be entitled to get the benefit of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc., particularly when they have been working against a post, and in a regular scale of pay. 6. From bare perusal of the appointment letter, annexed at Annexure-1, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed against the post of ‘Choukidar’ and was receiving a fixed pay scale. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered, as per the clause of para-17(iii). On that count alone, the petitioner can be comfortably said to be entitled to get the benefit of pension, gratuity, and other post-retirement benefits, even though, he has not been regularized. This benefit accrues on him as he has completed more than 15 years of services, for the respondents in a temporary establishment. 2026:JHHC:18951 4 7. The position that an employee under temporary establishment will be entitled to get pension, on completion of 15 years of services is further fortified from the provision of Rule-59 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. This rule provides that the Government is entitled to make relaxation and include any particular services under the Pension Rules. Applying this authority, the Govt. had adopted one liberalized pension scheme, wherein, it was specified that there are many temporary employees, who superannuate without confirmation of their services. Under such circumstances, the benefit of pension will be granted to such employees, if they have completed 15 years of services, as otherwise, it will cause hardship to them, if they are not allowed pension after their retirement. 8. Applying this provision of law, duly promulgated by the Govt., under the provision of Pension Rules, it is clear that the employee of temporary establishment is entitled to get pension on completion of 15 years of services. 9. The question that could now be raised is whether or not, work charge employees are to be categorized as temporary employees. This query has been answered by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra) at para-13 & 14, wherein, the Finance Department memo no.1344, dated 04.02.1949 has been quoted. The resolution has been quoted to say that the 2026:JHHC:18951 5 condition of services of work charge establishment will henceforth be identical with those of temporary Govt. servants. This departmental memorandum has been further said to be adopted under the provisions of proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India, as has been stated in para-14 of the judgment. Therefore, it has been held that the work charge employees have been granted temporary status of employment, as per the statutory mandate. Under such circumstances, the Court has, thereafter applied the provisions of Rule-59 to hold that the work charge employees, who are identical to the temporary employees will be entitled to pension on completion of 15 years of services. 10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in (2022) LIVE LAW (SC), 187. In this case, it has been held that if the respondents have not regularized the services of the employees, then, the employees should not suffer for such delaying tactics on part of the respondent-employer. If the employee has completed 20-30 years of services, then he will be entitled to be granted pension, as if regularized. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized, on completion of 5 years of services in work charge establishment, as has been mandated by the Full Bench in the 2026:JHHC:18951 6 case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra), at para-17(i). The fact that the petitioner was not regularized in due time, should not be allowed to work to his disadvantage. The case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (Supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case, as the petitioner has suffered non- regularization for the delay on part of the respondents. Now, he has superannuated and therefore, his past services should be considered for pension. 12. Reference may be made to yet another judgment rendered in the case of Bhikani Devi & etc Vs. Union of India & Ors., arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28802 – 28804 of 2019; judgment and order dated 01.06.2026. In this case, the employees were appointed on casual basis, as night-guards, in the year 1971-72. The respondents thereafter, came-up with a scheme to absorb all the employees in temporary establishment, in the year 1992. In this manner, a temporary status was given to all the employees and it was further stated that several benefits would be attached to the temporary status that is being granted. The petitioners unfortunately, were not absorbed in the temporary status, and they superannuated, without being given that status. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has framed the issue at para-32, which is as under:- “32. Having heard the counsel for both the parties and on perusal of pleadings and material on record, the issue that arises for consideration can be carved out as follows: Whether temporary status casual labourer, in the absence 2026:JHHC:18951 7 of a formal order of regularisation, would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation or not?” 13. The above-mentioned issue has been answered at para-76 of the judgment, which is being quoted herein below:- “76. The question as framed in para-32 above stands answered as follows:- A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.” 14. It is thus clear that a temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation, even in the absence of regularization of services. 15. The respondents have taken a ground that the Cabinet has taken a decision on 17.07.2023 wherein it has been decided that the entire past services of employee under work charge establishment shall be granted for pensionary benefits, only if he has been granted the status of permanent regular employee; as such, the case of the petitioner does not fall squarely, as per the provision of the Cabinet decision notified vide memo dated 17.07.2023. So far as the arrears of salary for the period between February 2019 to January 2020 and January 2021 and leave encashment is concerned; the answering respondent has already paid an amount of Rs. 9,37,501/-on 01.03.2025 and 06.03.2025. 16. From the rival contention of the parties, it is clear that the case of the petitioner requires consideration, in view of the fact that he has rendered more than 15 years of services in temporary establishment. The fact that the petitioner has 2026:JHHC:18951 8 rendered his services in temporary establishment is supported in the present case, as because, he was working on work charge establishment, which has been declared as a temporary status passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra). Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered under the provisions of Rule-59 of the Pension Rules to get the benefit of pension. 17. As stated hereinabove, the case of the petitioner is further supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (Supra), as because, the regularization of the petitioner was delayed due to the action of the respondents, and in the meantime, he has superannuated, therefore, following the ratio of the above judgment, the past 30 years of services of the petitioner should be counted as pension. 18. The objection taken by the respondents that the past services of an employee cannot be counted, for the reason being that he is not regularized, has to be deprecated in light of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Bhikhani Devi (Supra), wherein, it has been held at para- 76, that temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation, even in the absence of regularization. In the said case the scheme of 1992 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which grants the benefit 2026:JHHC:18951 9 of pension, on the basis of which, pensionary benefits have been decided for temporary employees. 19. Similarly, in the present case, the Rule-59, read with liberalized pension scheme, provides that temporary employees who have rendered 15 years of services are entitled to pension. 20. In view of the above discussion and finding, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits. The fact that he has not been regularized, will not come to hinder his case for grant of pensionary benefits. The entire 30 years of services should be counted for grant of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other post-retirement benefits. 21. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to verify the record of the petitioner and calculate entire post-retirement including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 22. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As if any also stands disposed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:29/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 01.07.2026