A bench of the Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant decision affirming that temporary government employees who have rendered over fifteen years of continuous service in sanctioned positions, with regular pay and dearness allowance, are entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand. The case arose from petitions filed by individuals who had served in roles such as Rent Collector, Clerk, and Amin in the Revenue Division of Ranchi, engaging in uninterrupted service for periods ranging from fifteen to thirty years. Although appointed on a temporary basis, they were paid through the regular establishment, enjoyed pay scales and dearness allowance, and their names never appeared on any casual or seasonal staff rolls. Despite this, they were denied pension after retirement, prompting them to seek relief through writ petitions under the applicable pension framework.
The petitioners presented a certificate from the Deputy Collector confirming that each had served continuously for over fifteen years. They relied on the language of Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, which empowers the government to treat such long and uninterrupted temporary service as pensionable. Government memos issued under this rule further supported the view that continuous temporary service should be considered for pension entitlements.
The State’s position was that the petitioners’ appointments were purely temporary, lacking regularization, and essentially seasonal in nature. It argued that their services did not qualify as qualifying pensionable service under the rules, citing their absence from permanent rolls and the lack of formal recruitment. As a result, it contended no right to pension could be asserted merely due to longstanding temporary engagement.
The Court examined the factual matrix and noted that, notwithstanding the temporary label, the petitioners performed duties for decades without interruption, were paid in a sustained manner, and their appointment orders were on sanctioned posts. The nature of their service advocated inclusion under pension provisions rather than exclusion as casual or seasonal employment. The Court observed that once the petitioners established their continuity with credible certification, the burden shifted to the State to produce rebuttal evidence—which it failed to do.
Referencing the enabling provisions of Rule 59, the Court held that the Government could exercise its discretion to treat such continuous service as pensionable. It drew upon precedents where continuity, legality of appointment, and payment from regular budgets militated in favor of entitlement. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that the onus lies with the employer to disprove such continuity and disqualify pension eligibility—not with the employee to prove perfection of formal regularization.
Consequently, the High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the pensionary benefits under Rule 59. The Court directed that their service be recognized as qualifying for pension, gratuity, and all consequential benefits, including arrears. The State was directed to process these claims within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring the employees receive due remuneration and pensionary rights consonant with the spirit and letter of the pension rules.
Thus, the decision clarified that long-serving temporary employees on sanctioned posts, consistently paid out of regular establishment and who served continuously for over fifteen years, cannot be denied pension solely on technical labels. Their service must be treated as pensionable under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, and the Court entrusted the authorities with implementing this entitlement in their favor.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.