2026:JHHC:3005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4490 of 2024 ------ Rashmi Srivastava, aged about 48 years, wife of Late Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Resident of B-67, Harmu Housing Colony, PO- Doranda, PS-Argora & District-Ranchi. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Chairman, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, PO, PS -Namkum & District-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, PO, PS -Namkum & District-Ranchi. 4. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, PO, PS -Namkum & District-Ranchi. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Neha Mehta, Advocate Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ 11/ 05th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Admittedly, the husband of this petitioner was employed by Bihar Intermediate Education Council in the post of Assistant on 18.10.1995. He was posted in the Regional Office at Ranchi. 3. In the year 2000, the State of Bihar was bifurcated which gave birth to the State of Jharkhand. In the State of Jharkhand, to regulate the Academics for intermediate education and Secondary Education, Sanskrit Education and Madrasa Education, the Jharkhand Academic Council was established by virtue of the Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2002. The Headquarters of the Jharkhand Academic Council was established at Ranchi. The petitioner’s husband continued to work under the Jharkhand Academic Council on the post of Assistant. 4. Be it noted that he was employed on daily wages but he works regularly. He ultimately expired on 22.11.2023 in 2026:JHHC:3005 2 harness after putting more than 28 years of service. Now the respondents are not paying the death benefits like pension etc., to this petitioner. Though the petitioner has been paid the gratuity in terms of the payment of gratuity act but other benefits have not paid. The petitioner claims that her husband should be given similar treatment as that of regular employee. 5. The fact that the husband of the petitioner worked under the respondent for nearly 28 years is not disputed. It is also not disputed that he has worked regularly. It is also not disputed that her husband was granted the benefit of ACP/MACP. 6. Working for the respondents for more than 28 years clearly suggests that the work which the husband of the petitioner was performing is perennial in nature and can be said to be integral to the primary function of the Jharkhand Academic Council. 7. After taking work for 28 years, the respondents who claims and pose themselves to be a model employer cannot act in the manner in which they have behaved. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Courd in the case of “State of Gujarat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel”, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004, has dealt with similar type of cases and at paragraph No.1 of the judgment has held as follows:- “1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” “ 9. Thus, considering the aforesaid fact which has been discussed above, since State is the model employer, I hold that they cannot behave in this manner and give stepmotherly treatment to the petitioner’s husband. Thus, the respondents are directed to pay all the death benefits of the husband of this petitioner to this petitioner who is none but the wife including pension and other benefit at the rate which is prevalent in the 2026:JHHC:3005 3 respondent-organization. 10. Since the petitioner’s husband has died in harness, so far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, same would be considered by the respondents within a period of six weeks. 11. The entire payment should be made within a period of six weeks. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed. 13. Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 05.02.2026 S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 10.02.2026