2026:JHHC:2641 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.517 of 2026 ----- 1. Bikash Kumar Pal, aged about 63 years, son of Shri Gunadhar Pal, resident of Village Lakarjoriya, P.O. Nachangariya, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 2. Umesh Mandal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Badri Mandal, resident of Village Chigalpahari, P.O. Nonihatwari, P.S. Jama, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. Ambika Prasad Mandal, aged about 63 years, son of Late Ram Ratan Mandal, resident of Keshiabahal, P.O. Baskichak, P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-II …...... 02 /02.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners prays to quash Order No. 168 of 2025 contained in Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025 whereby their earlier service was not counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 3. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioners earlier moved this Court by filing WP(S) No. 1979 of 2025 which was disposed of on 11.06.2025 with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners especially considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017. 4. The respondents thereafter considering the case of the petitioners, dismissed the claim on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners in 2013 pursuant to the advertisement of 2009 is a 2026:JHHC:2641 2 fresh appointment, thus this writ petition was filed. 5. Admittedly the petitioners were earlier working under the respondents and their payment were made on daily wage basis. Thereafter the advertisement was published in 2009 for appointment for which the petitioners applied and the petitioners were considered for appointment and appointment letter was issued to the petitioners in 2013. 6. From the impugned order it is clear that weightage was given to the petitioners for their past service which they have rendered with the respondents and after giving such weightage the petitioners qualified and they were appointed. 7. The aforesaid fact clearly suggest that the respondents also admits that the petitioners worked under the respondents prior to their appointment. 8. From the impugned order, I also find that the respondents have not granted pension to the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion that they are not qualified to get pension on the ground that they have not completed 10 years of the qualifying service which is mandatory for payment of pension. They have also taken a plea that since some weightage was given at the time of appointment to the petitioners in respect of their past service, no further relief can be granted to the petitioners. 9. Admittedly the petitioners from the date of their appointment have not completed 10 years which is qualified service for grant of pension but the fact which is undisputed that the petitioners also served with the respondents for some period much prior to that. In the similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others” passed in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 in paragraph 5 has observed and held as follows: “5. Even though strictly construing the Rules, the appellants may not be entitled to pension. However, reading the rules consistent with Articles 14, 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India and applying the doctrine of proportionate equality, we are of the view that they are entitled to weightage of service 2026:JHHC:2641 3 rendered as daily wagers towards regular service for the purpose of pension.” 10. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the admitted fact that the petitioners have worked with the respondents prior to the appointment also, I direct the respondents to consider the period of past service rendered by the petitioners under the respondents for the purpose of post retiral benefits including the pension, gratuity etc. 11. The impugned order No. 168 of 2025 contained in Memo No. 762 dated 28.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is set aside. 12. The respondents will take steps to ensure payment of pension and other benefits within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. This writ application is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 06.02.2026