2026:JHHC:18954 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5399 of 2022 ….….. 1. Parmeshwar Prasad, aged about 78 years, son of Late Janki Prasad, resident of Flat No.C-2, Maha Maya Apartment, Morabadi, P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi. 2. Kawaldhari Prasad Singh, aged about 78 years, son of Late Kalika Prasad Singh, resident of House No.18B, Datta Villa road (Antu Chowk), New Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi. 3. Satish Chandra Roy, aged about 77 years, son of Late Dani Prasad Roy, resident of Roy Bhawan, Veena Niwash, B.N. Jha road, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. 4. Braj Kishor Prasad, aged about 76 years, son of Late Lachho Mahto, resident of East Ashok Nagar, Road No.14B, Gali No.4 East, House No.167, P.O. Lohia Nagar, P.S. Kankar Bagh, District Patna. 5. Krishna Nandan Prasad, aged about 77 years, son of Late Rameshwar Prasad, resident of Saraswati Bihar, Professor Colony, Bajrangpuri, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna. 6. Mathura Prasad Singh aged of about 76years, son of Late Chhotu Mahto, years, son resident of Mohalla Khandak Par, P.O. Bihar Sharif, P.S Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda (Bihar). 7. Jai Krishna Ojha aged about 76 years, son of Late nand Kumar Ojha, resident of Keshav Nagar (Pirra), P.O. and P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi. 8. Madan Mohan years, son Chaudhary aged about 76 of of late Trilok Nath Chaudhary, resident Flat No.H/1, Ashish Plaza Phase-2, Kali Mandir Road, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi. 9. Gopal Kumar Paul aged about 76 years, son of Late Ratan Kumar, resident of 2D, Kuco Apartment, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 10. Rana Pratap Singh aged about 76 years, son of Late Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Plot No.14, Vikash Vatika, P.O. Buty, Shivaji Nagar, Dumerdaga, Buty, P.O. & P.S. Khelgawn, District Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:18954 2 11. Kamla Kant Jha aged about 80 years, son of Late Baleshwar Jha, resident of D-24, Vatika Green City, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 12. Shanti Das, w/o Kusheshwar Lal Das, resident of Enem Villa, Namkum Road, Kusai, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 13. Amal Kumar Sinha aged about 76 years, son of Late Tarkeshwar Saran, resident Huse No.963 Gandhi School Road, Jhumri Telaiya, of P.O. and P.S. Jhumri Telaiya, District Koderma. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at H.E.C. Admin, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL), Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL), Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Director Personnel, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. Director Account, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C.. Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 8. General Manager, Personnel-cum-General Administration, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 9. Personnel Officer, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, H.E.C., Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 10. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District 2026:JHHC:18954 3 Deoghar. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Sr. Adv Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv Mr. Priya Sahay, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)I Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)I C.A.V. ON: 07/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 18.02.2019 issued vide office of order no.225 and communicated to one of the petitioners on 24.12.2020 issued vide letter no.2271 under the signature of Deputy General Manager (Human Resources), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi (as contained in Annexure- 12 to this writ application) by which petitioners representation and various other persons were rejected. (ii)For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondents to act in Delhi terms of the order of Principal Delhi Bench of Administrative Tribunal, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Kerala High Court, Hon'ble Punjab and Huryana High Court, Hon'ble Supreme court and the Central Government subsequent notifications dated 6th April 2016 and 13th June 2016 and also direct the respondents to re-fix the pension and make the payment with arrears w.e.f. 1.1.2006 without reducing the pension due to Pro-rata. (iii)For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus for direction upon the respondents to re-fix/revise the pension of the petitioners (pre 2006 retired) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in pursuance of the recommendation of the pay revision and pay further direction revise the pension of the petitioners 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012. (iv)For any other appropriate relief (s) to which the petitioners may be found entitled in law and equity. 3. The brief facts of the instant writ application are that 2026:JHHC:18954 4 the petitioners were appointed under the respondents on the executive cadre, and have retired before 01.01.2006 after rendering qualifying service ranging between 20 and 33 years. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that in view of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Government of India, through its Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 06.04.2016, provided for the revision of pension of pre- 2006 pensioners, wherein it was stated that the pension of government employees retiring on or after 01.01.2006, having rendered less than 33 years of service at the time of retirement, will stand delinked from the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service and would not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band and corresponding grade pay, without any pro-rata reduction. However, the Board of Directors, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, conducted its 37th meeting and it made certain resolutions vide General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019, to revise the pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in consonance with O.M. dated 01.09.2008 and its subsequent amendments. However, the revised pension structure was approved w.e.f. 24.09.2012, provided that there would be no change in the pension/family pension between 01.01.2006 and 23.09.2012, and no arrears would be paid for 2026:JHHC:18954 5 the said period. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was earlier brought before this Court by the Petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(S) No. 898 of 2020, claiming the same reliefs, wherein a direction was issued on 06.07.2020 to the competent authority for consideration of the representations made by the pensioners. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner No. 2 and other similarly situated pensioners submitted their representations on 20.07.2020, but their grievances were not redressed, resulting in contempt proceedings. 6. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the JUVNL communicated the provisions of the General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019 to one of the Petitioners vide Letter No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, thereby rejecting the representations of the petitioners and other similarly situated pensioners, and decided not to revise their pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Consequently, the contempt case was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2021, with liberty to challenge any adverse decision taken by the concerned authorities regarding the representations. Hence, this writ application. 7. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that when the 6th Pay Revision was accepted by the State Government on the recommendation of the Finance Department vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, it 2026:JHHC:18954 6 clearly provided that the pension benefit given to the State Government employees would be revised at par with the Central Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He also submitted that in light of the Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, the finally revised pension of the pre- 2006 pensioners in terms of the O.M. dated 06.04.2016 is deemed to have been accepted by the State Government, and accordingly, the pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to get the revision of pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2006. 8. It was also submitted that the various orders and judicial pronouncements of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi; CAT, Ernakulam Bench; Kerala High Court; and Hon’ble Supreme Court have been implemented by the Central Government vide notification dated 30.07.2015, whereby the pensions of pre-2006 pensioners have been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012, in accordance with O.M. dated 28.01.2013. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the pension of the State Government employees is decided vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, and Resolution No. 858 dated 27.03.2015, whereby the differential amount is payable from 24.09.2012, and the arrears for the period 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012 are payable according to the old provisions, as per the advice from the Finance Department, 2026:JHHC:18954 7 Government of Jharkhand; and the General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019 is in consonance with the said Resolutions. He further submitted that the O.M. dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Government of India has not been adopted by the State Government yet; hence, the said guidelines have not been implemented in JUVNL and its subsidiary companies. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioners were the employees working under the respondents and after rendering their services ranging between 20 and 33 years, they retired before 01.01.2006. It further appears that the Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, implemented the 6th Pay Revision Commission Report for the pensioners retired prior to 2006 vide Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008. Pursuant thereto, the State Government of Jharkhand adopted the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, and agreed in principle to grant the central pay scale and other allowances with central service conditions to its employees. 11. Thereafter, the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 was amended vide Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013, stating that in cases where the pre-2006 pensioners have not rendered minimum qualifying service for 2026:JHHC:18954 8 full pension, there will be a pro-rata reduction in their pension, as per Rule 49 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provided that it must not be less than Rs. 3,500/- per month. 12. It further appears that the State Government vide Resolution No. 858 dated 27.03.2015 adopted the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013, stating that the differential amount in the pension will be payable from 24.09.2012, and the payment of arrears between 01.01.2006 and 23.09.2012 will be made according to the old provisions. 13. Thereafter, the pre-2006 pensioners demanded revision of their pension in consonance with Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013 and the Resolution dated 27.03.2015. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the matter related to not granting the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 36148 of 2013, and the judgment dated 17.03.2015 went in favour of the retired employees by directing the cut-off date as arbitrary and revising their pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 14. Subsequently, in compliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Central Government vide Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2015 notified that all the pre-2006 pensioners’ pension shall be granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012, along with the payment of arrears in consonance 2026:JHHC:18954 9 with the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013. Thereafter, a similar decision was taken by the Central Government vide Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, providing for the revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners, and the provision of delinking of revised pension from qualifying service of 33 years was also notified. Later, the Central Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2016, wherein it was provided that the pre-2006 pensioners who were drawing a monthly pension after completing 10 years of qualifying service are eligible for the benefit in terms of Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 and Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016. 15. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of JUVNL issued the General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019 pursuant to its 37th meeting, and approved the revision of pension of the pre-2006 pensioners, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by stepping up the pension to 50%, and family pension to 30% of the sum of minimum pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired, in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 and its subsequent amendments. It was also decided that in cases where the pensioner has served for less than the minimum required period of service, the pension will continue to be reduced on a pro-rata 2026:JHHC:18954 10 basis, provided that the reduced pension must not fall below the sum of ₹3,500 per month. However, these would take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e., 24.09.2012, and no arrear is to be paid for the period from 01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012. 16. The grievance of the petitioners arises out of the fact that, pursuant to the representation filed by the Petitioner No. 2 and other similarly situated pensioners, as they were so directed in W.P.(S) No. 898 of 2020, the JUVNL passed an order rejecting the representation vide Letter No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020 in consonance with General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019, thereby deciding not to revise the pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, on perusal of the counter affidavit dated 24.07.2024, the Court finds the sole reason for denial of the benefit from 01.01.2006 is the stand of the respondents that the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 has not been formally adopted by the State Government and that Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009 and Resolution No. 858 dated 27.03.2015 restrict payment of the differential amount only from 24.09.2012. 17. However, once the principle of delinking pension from the requirement of 33 years of service has been accepted and implemented by the respondents themselves, there appears no 2026:JHHC:18954 11 justifiable reason to deny the consequential benefit from 01.01.2006, particularly when the very issue has already been settled in favour of similarly situated pensioners by the Hon’ble Apex Court and implemented by the Central Government initially through the order dated 30.07.2015, and later through the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016. 18. In view of the fact that vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009 issued by the State Government on the recommendation of the Finance Department, the State Government has adopted the revision of the scale of pay as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and the State Government has agreed in principle to grant the central pay scale and other allowances with the central service condition of its employees; the respondents cannot deny the claim of the petitioners in the garb of the non- adoption of the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, as the same is deemed to have amended the decision of the State Government regarding revision of pension of the retirees pre- 2006 pensioners, and accordingly, they are entitled to get the revision of pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2006. As stated hereinabove, the issue related to not granting the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 36148 of 2013, which was decided in favour of the retired employees by directing the cut- 2026:JHHC:18954 12 off date as arbitrary and revising their pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and only in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Central Government vide Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2015 notified that all the i.e. pre- 2006 pensioners’ pension shall be granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012, along with the payment of arrears in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013. Thus, the issue involved in the instant case is already decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and abided accordingly by the Central Government; thus, the respondents cannot deny the claim of the petitioners in the garb of the non-adoption of the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016. 19. This Court further finds that the impugned order contained in Letter No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, proceeds on a technical ground and fails to take into consideration the subsequent developments and the relevant judicial pronouncements recognizing the entitlement of pre-2006 pensioners having rendered the minimum qualifying service of 20 years. Consequently, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Letter No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, as well as General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019, to the extent they deny revision of pension to 2026:JHHC:18954 13 the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2006, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the pension/family pension of the petitioners by extending the benefit of delinking of qualifying service from 33 years and grant consequential arrears with effect from 01.01.2006, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Consequently, the writ petition stand allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stand closed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:29/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 01.07.2026