The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the pension eligibility of daily wage workers whose total service duration is less than the standard ten years required for pension benefits. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to equitable treatment of employees who have dedicated substantial periods to public service, even if their tenure does not strictly meet the conventional thresholds.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around Bhima Ram, who was appointed as a Beldar on a daily wage basis in the Irrigation and Public Health Department. His services were terminated in 1993, but he was later reinstated and continued to serve until his retirement on July 12, 2010. Post-retirement, Bhima Ram sought regularization of his service and corresponding pension benefits. In 2014, a Division Bench directed the authorities to assess his case on its merits. Subsequently, in 2015, the Executive Engineer granted him work charge status effective from January 1, 2004, and regularization from December 12, 2005, acknowledging his completion of eight years of continuous service. Despite this recognition, his application for pension benefits was denied on June 10, 2019, on the grounds that his total qualifying service was less than the requisite ten years. This denial led Bhima Ram to file the present writ petition.
Legal Arguments Presented
Representing Bhima Ram, Mr. P.D. Nanda contended that his client had completed 240 days of daily wage service in 1995, as evidenced by muster rolls. He also argued that Bhima Ram had been incorrectly superannuated at 58 years instead of 60, and that correcting this error would enable him to meet the qualifying service period for pension benefits.
Conversely, Mr. Hemant K. Verma, representing the state, objected to the petition on procedural grounds, citing principles of res judicata and provisions under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. He maintained that Bhima Ram's service period and retirement age had been accurately calculated per existing rules. Furthermore, he asserted that since Bhima Ram's appointment was after May 15, 2003, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules were inapplicable to him.
Court's Analysis and Findings
Justice Satyen Vaidya, presiding over the case, undertook a comprehensive examination of the facts and applicable legal principles. The court noted that the state had acknowledged Bhima Ram's continuous daily wage service of eight years, followed by over six years of regular service. This acknowledgment was pivotal in assessing his eligibility for pension benefits.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which established that daily wage service, when followed by regularization, should be considered for pension eligibility. Specifically, the Supreme Court had determined that five years of daily wage service equate to one year of regular service. Applying this principle, the court calculated that Bhima Ram's eight years of daily wage service would contribute an additional 1.6 years to his regular service, effectively extending his total qualifying service.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that if an employee's total service, after such calculations, exceeds eight years but falls short of ten years, it should be rounded up to ten years for the purpose of pension eligibility. This approach ensures that employees who have dedicated substantial periods to public service are not unfairly deprived of pension benefits due to minor shortfalls in service duration.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has far-reaching implications for daily wage workers and contractual employees seeking pension benefits. It establishes a precedent that acknowledges the value of continuous service, even when rendered in a non-regular capacity. By recognizing and integrating daily wage service into the calculation of qualifying service for pensions, the court has reinforced the principles of fairness and equity in employment benefits.
The judgment also serves as a directive to governmental departments and public sector undertakings to re-evaluate their policies regarding the regularization and pension eligibility of daily wage workers. It underscores the necessity for administrative authorities to adopt a more inclusive and just approach in recognizing the contributions of all employees, irrespective of the nature of their initial appointment.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in favor of Bhima Ram marks a significant step towards ensuring social justice for daily wage workers. By interpreting service rules in a manner that accommodates the realities of non-regular employment, the court has highlighted the importance of equitable treatment in public service employment. This judgment not only benefits the petitioner but also sets a transformative precedent for similarly situated employees seeking rightful pension benefits.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.