Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.223 of 2025 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 8. The Circle Officer, Godda official address at Block-Mahagama, P.O. + P.S. and District-Godda. 9. The Circle Officer, Jamtara official address at Block-Narayanpur (Jamtara), P.O. + P.S. and District-Jamtara. 10. The Circle Officer, Dumka, official address at Block-Ranishwar, P.O.-Raghunathpur, P.S. Raneshsar, District-Dumka. 11. The Circle Officer, Dumka, official address at Block-Saraiyahat, P.O. + P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka. 12. The Circle Officer, Jamtara, official address at Block-Jamtara, P.O. + P.S. Jamtara, District-Jamtara. ..........Appellants. -Versus- 1. Govind Mandal, son of late Raghunandan Mandal, resident of village-Karna Tari, P.O. Kurmichak, P.S. Godda (M), District- Godda, official address of retirement, Block-Mahagama (C.O. Office), District-Godda, Jharkhand. 2. Sukhdeo Rao, son of late Prayag Rao, resident of village+P.O.- Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar, official address of retirement, Block-Narayanpur (C.O. Office), P.O. + P.S. Narayanpur, District-Jamtara. 3. Prabir Kumar Dutta, son of Raipad Dutta, resident of village- Haripur, P.O. Jay Haripur, P.S. Ranehswar, District Dumka, official address of retirement, Block-Raneshwar (C.O. Office), P.O. Raghunathpur, P.S. Raneshwar, District-Dumka. 4. Kailash Chandra Goswami, son of late Bijendra Goswami, resident of village-Dhobarni, P.O. Roundhiya, P.S. Saraiyahat, District- Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) Dumka, official address of retirement Block-Saraiyahat (C.O. Office), P.O. + P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka. 5. Rekha Kunui, daughter of Satya Narayan Kunai, resident of village- Belabagan, P.O. Dabargram, P.S. and District-Deoghar, official address of retirement Block-Jamtara (C.O. Office), P.O., P.S. and District-Jamtara (Deceased). 5(a). Antara Aditya @ Antara, daughter of Chandan Kumar Kunai, resident of Mohalla-Belabagan, P.O. + P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar. 6. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, office at A.G. Colony, Doranda, Ranchi. ........... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, A.G. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C-1 For the Res. Nos.1-5: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sonal Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Ram, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Res. No.6 : Mr. Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate ----- Reserved on 19.08.2026 Pronounced on 27.08.2026 Per: Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order dated 11.11.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition filed by the writ petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘private respondents’) directing the respondents/appellants to fix the pension of the private respondents under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) as existing prior to the year 2004, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The factual background of the case is that the private respondents were appointed as ‘Compilors’ on a contractual basis by the Regional Deputy Director of Census Operations, Deoghar region Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) Bihar, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for the period from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992. They were posted at the Regional Tabulation Office at Jasidih, under the Director of Census Operations, Bihar, Patna. The territorial jurisdiction of the said place now falls within the State of Jharkhand. 3. The services of the private respondents were terminated with effect from 01.09.1992 due to winding up of the Regional Tabulation Office. Subsequently, the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, issued a resolution vide memo No.5021 dated 03.11.2004, whereby a decision was taken to accommodate 602 (six hundred and two) census employees, who had been retrenched in the year 1992, against vacant Class III and Class IV posts in the regional offices under the administrative control of the said department. 4. It was further resolved that there was no necessity to create any additional posts for accommodating the said retrenched census employees, and their adjustments were to be made against such posts on which appointments were not being made through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission or Jharkhand Subordinate Services Selection Board. The aforesaid resolution dated 03.11.2004 was thereafter published in the Extraordinary Gazette of Jharkhand on 10.11.2004. 5. The private respondents were thereafter adjusted against the posts in the regional offices of the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, and they accordingly joined their respective posts on different dates Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) between 24.08.2010 and 23.06.2012. Upon their retirement, the private respondents, along with other similarly situated persons, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5914 of 2018 claiming pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme contending that their appointments were not fresh appointments, rather they were accommodated pursuant to the resolution dated 03.11.2004. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2023, directing the private respondents and others to file representations before the appellant no.2 enclosing all the relevant documents, who in turn was directed to decide their representations by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2023, the private respondents and other similarly situated persons filed a joint representation before the appellant no.2. The said representation was considered and decided by a reasoned order contained in memo no.874 dated 07.02.2024. By the said order, the dates on which the private respondents and others had joined the posts pursuant to their adjustment, were treated as their respective dates of appointment for the purpose of determining their entitlement to pensionary benefits. It was further ordered that, in terms of Rule 145 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 (in short ‘the Rules, 2000’) pension was admissible only upon completion of ten years of qualifying service, to be reckoned from the date of joining the service till the date of retirement. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the private respondents preferred another writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2024. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2024, whereby the appellants were directed to fix the pension of the private respondents under the Old Pension Scheme as it existed prior to the year 2004, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error of law in passing the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 by making wrong interpretation of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 509. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that seniority and service benefits can only be reckoned from the date of a "substantive appointment" and the service rendered by an employee on an ad hoc or contractual basis cannot be treated as substantive or qualifying service for the purpose of such benefits. 9. It is further submitted that the private respondents were initially appointed on a contractual basis in the year 1991 and rendered their services from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992, whereafter their services were terminated with effect from 01.09.1992. Thereafter, they remained out of government service until their joining the posts on different dates upon adjustment in different regional offices of the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand which were between Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) 24.08.2010 and 23.06.2012. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the private respondents had rendered more than 30 years of service, is factually erroneous and legally unsustainable. 10. It is also contended that, in view of Rule 56 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the qualifying service of a government servant commences only from the date on which he assumes charge of the post to which he is first appointed. However, in the present case, the actual dates of appointment of the private respondents were between the years 2010 and 2012. 11. It is further contended that Rule 145 of the Rules, 2000 prescribes minimum ten years of qualifying service in a regular establishment for pension eligibility and since the private respondents only rendered approximately 7 to 8 years of regular service from their actual dates of joining until superannuation, they do not meet statutory threshold for the grant of pension. 12. It is further submitted that one of the mandatory conditions for grant of pension as provided under Rule 58 of the Rules, 2000 is that the employment of a government employee must be substantive and permanent, however the initial appointments of the private respondents made in the year 1991 was contractual. 13. It is further argued that Rule 61 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 provides that a service does not qualify for pension unless the government employee holds a post on a “permanent establishment”. In the present case, the initial engagement of the private respondents as ‘Compilors’ in the Regional Tabulation Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) Office at Jasidih under the Director of Census Operations, Bihar, Patna, was purely temporary and contractual in nature. Their said engagement was neither against a permanent establishment nor against a substantive post and, therefore, the period of service rendered by them pursuant to such temporary appointment can not be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 14. It is submitted that the resolution dated 03.11.2004 was issued for adjustment of the retrenched census employees and not for regularization of their service and as such after adjustment in service, they were treated as fresh appointees. 15. It is further contended that the private respondents are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) as they were adjusted in service in view of the resolution dated 03.11.2004 which was issued well after the cut-off date for grant of New Pension Scheme (NPS) i.e., 01.01.2004. 16. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the private respondents submits that at the time of respective joining pursuant to the issuance of the resolution dated 03.11.2004, the private respondents were not the fresh appointees, rather they were initially appointed in the year 1991 and thereafter were regularized in view of the said resolution. Hence, they are entitled for pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme which was in operation prior to 01.01.2004. 17. It is further submitted that the private respondents cannot be treated to be the fresh appointees upon their posting in the Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) Regional Offices of the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand between the year 2010 and 2012. They cannot be penalized for the delay occurred in their respective postings after adjustment in service. It is also argued that the private respondents are not claiming any salary for the past services, rather, they are claiming pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme counting the past services and hence, the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1922 of 2024 does not warrant any interference of this Court. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 19. The contention of the appellants is that the services rendered by the private respondents on contractual basis between the period from 10.06.1991 and 31.08.1992 cannot be counted for grant of pensionary benefits, whereas the private respondents have claimed that the services rendered by them on contractual basis were subsequently regularized in view of the resolution dated 03.11.2004 passed by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand and as such, the aforesaid period of their contractual service is to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. 20. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2004, placing much reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rashi Mani Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) Mishra (Supra.). In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed as under: - “7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashi Mani Mishra & Others Vs. Sate of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 509, wherein it has been held that seniority is to be counted from the date of initial appointment even on adhoc basis.” 21. We have perused the said judgment wherein the fact was that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1985 without any consultation with the UPPSC. Their services were subsequently regularised after following due procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad Hoc Appointments (On Posts within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (in short ‘Rules, 1979’). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said case, has held that the substantive appointments of the appellants can be said to be only from the date of their regularisation/appointment made in the year 1989 after their names were recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under the Rules, 1979 and their services were regularised on 23.02.1989 as per the Rules, 1979 on following due procedure as required under the said Rules. Therefore, their seniority is to be counted only from 23.02.1989 i.e., the date of their regularisation, and the services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior thereto i.e. from the date of their initial appointments in the year 1985 is not to be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-vis, the direct recruits appointed prior to 1989. Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) 22. It thus appears that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge by making erroneous interpretation of the judgment of Rashi Mani Mishra (Supra.). 23. We have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corpn. of India & Another Vs. Magi H. Desai reported in (2023) 18 SCC 705 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any scheme of a department, the services rendered by an employee as casual/contractual employee cannot be counted for giving pensionary benefits. 24. In the present case, the learned counsel for the private respondents has failed to show any scheme of the State of Jharkhand which provides for grant of pensionary benefits by counting the services rendered as causal/contractual employees. Moreover, the Rules, 2000 specifically provides that for grant of pensionary benefits, the appointment of the government employee must be on the substantive and permanent post. 25. On perusal of the Discharge-cum-Conduct Certificate of the private respondents annexed as Annexure-10 series of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.03.2025, it is evident that the private respondents were appointed in the year 1991 purely on contractual basis for the period from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992 and they were terminated from service with effect from 01.09.1992. Subsequently, after more than 12 years from the date Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) of termination, the State Government took decision to adjust the private respondents and other retrenched census employees, against vacant Class III and Class IV posts in the regional offices of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. 26. Thus, we are of the considered view that the services rendered by the private respondents purely on contractual basis from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992 cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Moreover, the order of termination of the private respondents after completion of the contract, has not been declared illegal by any competent court of law. Thus, the decision for adjustment of the private respondents taken vide resolution dated 03.11.2004 cannot be treated to be a decision of their regularization in service. 27. The learned counsel for the private respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Krishna Rai and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2780. In the said case, the fact was that the respondents were initially appointed on daily wages and subsequently, they were regularized in service after the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, in the present case, the private respondents were not regularized, rather adjusted against vacant Class III and Class IV posts in the regional offices of Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand pursuant to the decision of the government taken vide resolution dated 03.11.2004. As such, the Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) facts and circumstance of the present case is different from the case cited by the learned counsel for the private respondents. Hence, the observation made in the said case would not help the case of the private respondents. 28. Nonetheless, an important aspect of the matter is that, though, the decision for adjustment of the private respondents and other terminated census employees was taken by the Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 03.11.2004, they were given posting on different dates ranging from 24.08.2010 to 23.06.2012 perhaps due to gradual availability of the vacancies. As per the government decision, there was no need to create additional posts for their adjustment and they were to be adjusted against the posts on which the appointments were not being made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission or Jharkhand Subordinate Services Selection Board. 29. On perusal of the reasoned order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the appellant no.2, it would be evident that some of the similarly situated persons were given joining orders in the year 2007 and due to the said reason, they completed 10 years of qualifying service for availing the benefit of pension, however the private respondents were given joining orders between 24.08.2010 to 23.06.2012 due to which they could not complete 10 years of qualifying service for availing pensionary benefits. The private respondents have faced this situation for no fault on their part. The said situation came up due to the nature of decision taken by the government in its resolution dated 03.11.2004. The decision Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) of the government to the said extent is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since the similarly situated persons forming part of the same class, have been treated unequally. 30. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the considered view that in the ends of justice and to maintain parity among the similarly situated persons, it would be appropriate to count the qualifying service of 10 years for grant of pensionary benefits with effect from the resolution dated 03.11.2004 till the date of retirement of the private respondents. 31. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per rule 56 of the Rules, 2000, the qualifying service only begins from the date on which an employee takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed and as such the qualifying service in case of the private respondents would be counted from the date of their joining the respective posts. We are of the view that the said rule is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Though, the decision for adjustment of the private respondents was taken in the year 2004 itself, however they were issued joining orders on different dates quite belatedly perhaps owing to gradual availability of posts. 32. It is also imperative to note that though the dates of joining of the private respondents and other similarly situated persons are different, they are entitled to be treated in regular service with effect from the issuance of the resolution dated 03.11.2004. This is primarily for the reason that after issuance of the said resolution, Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:25760-DB) it was for the government to issue posting orders to these persons without any undue delay. Such delay in issuing posting orders on different dates thereby discriminating one group of persons as against the other, is certainly attributable to the government. 33. Thus, in our considered view, the date of issuance of the resolution should have been the date from which the private respondents should be treated in service for calculating the period of 10 years of qualifying service. The record of the case also suggests that all the private respondents have completed 10 years of qualifying service, if their appointment is counted from the date of issuance of the resolution dated 03.11.2004. 34. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, we direct the appellants to fix the pension of the private respondents under the law applicable on 03.11.2004. 35. The present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the impugned judgment/order dated 11.11.2024 is set aside to the said extent. 36. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 27th August, 2026 A.F.R. Rohit Uploaded on 27.08.2026