2026:JHHC:5920 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 3254 of 2025 1. Awadh Kishor Rana, son of late Haldhar Rana, resident of Mahuwa Dagal Dudhani, P.o Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 2. RuplalGloshwami, son of late Lakikant Goswami, resident of Lakhikundi, P.O Asansol, P.S. Dumka Muffasil, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. Dilip Kumar Das, son of late Habu Das, resident of Rashikpur Daspara, P.o and P.S. and District- Dumka,Jharkhand. 4. Dasrath Panjiyara, son of late Radha Nath Panjiyara, resident of village Mudabahal, P.O.Asansol, P.S.Muffasil, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Himansu Kumar Mandal, son of late Shiv Ram Mandal, resident of Bhairavpur, P.O Bhairavpur, P.S. Jama, Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s). -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, 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) : M/s Saurabh Shekhar, Anurag Kumar and Dhruva Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V. …...... 02/27.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners prays to quash Order No. 154 of 2024 contained in Memo No. 660 dated 5.11.2024 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. 3198 of 2023 which was disposed of on 25.04.2024 with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. 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 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. Page No. 1. 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 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. 154 of 2024 contained in Memo No. 660 dated 5.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is set aside. 12. The respondents will take steps to ensure payment of pension and other benefits to the petitioners at the earliest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. This writ application is allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27th February, 2026 Anu/CP-2 Uploaded on: 28.2.2026