(2026:JHHC:5306) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S). No. 1171 of 2026 Bikram Rajak, aged about 68 years, son of late Ram Khelawan Rajak, resident of Railway Hendal Road, Purwi Lohanipur, Phulwari, P.O. & P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Directorate of National Savings, Government of Jharkhand, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Doranda, PO - Doranda, PS - Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --- 05/19th February, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the past service of the petitioner which he has served as a helper in Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd for calculating his post retiral and pensionary benefits. 3. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed as a helper in Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd on 16.02.1972 vide order dated 22.02.1972 (Annexure - 1). Thereafter, vide Annexure - 2, the petitioner was deputed after obtaining the consent from the petitioner and the department i.e., National Savings Department under the Bihar Government. The said order of deputation is of 30.04.1998 which is at Annexure - 2 of this writ petition. The aforesaid letter clearly suggests that his appointment was by way of deputation. (2026:JHHC:5306) 2 4. Vide Annexure - 4, that is order dated 23.10.2007, the petitioner was absorbed in the aforesaid department and he got superannuated on 31.03.2017. 5. The respondents have calculated his retiral benefits including pension and etc, considering the period of service only from the date he was deputed in National Savings Department, Government of Bihar. The period which he has worked under the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd, has not been considered. 6. Since the petitioner has been admittedly working in Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd from 1972 and he was deputed in the National Savigns Department, Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand), his past services needs to be considered for the purpose of disbursement of the retiral benefits. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2135, while considering the case of the employees who were working in different public sector undertakings, where the job was pensionable and they were sent on deputation and were ultimately absorbed by the state held that for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits, their past service shall be counted. Further, in the similar matter in Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Tripurari Sharan reported in (2022) 18 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to issue contempt for non-compliance of order to give benefits of service rendered prior to their absorption in grant of pensionary benefits. Paragraph No. 12 to 15 of the judgment is extracted as under:- “12. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar. In the order dated 4-3-2020 [State of Bihar v. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1401], this Court has reproduced, in extenso, the directions issued by the High Court of Patna in its order dated 12-12-2017 [Mukteshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3751]. The said order of the High Court of Patna is very clear. It was directed to the State of Bihar to grant benefits to each of the appellants (2026:JHHC:5306) 3 therein by counting services as rendered by them in the Boards, corporations and public sector undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the pensionary benefits after counting such service in the Boards or corporations. In the said order dated 4-3-2020 [State of Bihar v. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1401], this Court has also noticed that the review petition filed by the State of Jharkhand being Review Petition (Civil) No. 459 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 13372 of 2015 arising from the order dated 7-9-2017 [State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2135] was also dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 6-3-2018 [State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3807]. Vide the said order dated 7- 9-2017 [State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2135], this Court had directed that all the benefits mentioned therein to be paid within a period of six months from the date of the said order. 13. The perusal of the order dated 15-2-2021 [Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Deepak Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3266] would also reveal that the contention which is raised with regard to compliance in view of the Government Resolution dated 14-9-2020, was considered by this Court and this Court did not find favour with the same. Though, it was not necessary, we had clarified that the directions meant payment to all the employees exactly what was paid by the State of Jharkhand to the employees who were covered by the said order. 14. From the perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna as well as the orders passed by this Court, it is clear that the State of Bihar was required to give benefit to each of the appellants by counting services as rendered by them in the Boards, corporations and public sector undertakings prior to their absorption and to grant them the pensionary benefits after counting such service in the Boards or corporations. The contention with regard to compliance through Government Resolution dated 14-9-2020 has also been rejected by this Court in its order dated 15-2-2021 [Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Deepak Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3266] . It is further to be noted that the State of Bihar itself had filed IA No. 62610 of 2021 for extension of period to comply with the directions issued by this Court dated 4-3-2020 [State of Bihar v. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, 2020 SCC (2026:JHHC:5306) 4 OnLine SC 1401] and 15-2-2021 [Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Deepak Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3266] . One month's time was granted by this Court by order dated 29-6-2021 [Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Deepak Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3378]. 15. In that view of the matter, we, prima facie, find that the non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 4-3-2020 [State of Bihar v. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1401] and 15-2-2021 [Bijay Kumar Sinha v. Deepak Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3266], is wilful and deliberate and amounts to contempt of this Court.” 8. In view of the facts of this case and the judgment cited above, I direct the respondents to consider the service rendered by the petitioner as helper in Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd by giving him continuity of service. His retiral benefits should be calculated accordingly. 9. If it is necessary to re-fix the pension and other benefits, the same will be done by the respondents and the benefits should be extended to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi Uploaded on:- 25.02.2026