Meera Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Widow has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for payment of retiral benefits on account of death of her husband who died in harness on

04.11.2003 after 23 years of his service. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the office order no. 1707, Dated 27.11.2009, passed by

Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Ranchi by which claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for a

direction upon the respondents to grant her pensionary benefits including Graduity and leave encashment. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction

upon the respondents to provide appointment to son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.

The facts of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that Atwa Ahir was appointed as a Road Labour (Path Mazdoor) on approval by

the then Government with effect from 18.09.1980 vide office order no. 23/80 - 81, Notification No. 865, Dated 18.09.1980 and was posted at Bundu

Sub-Division of National Highway Division, Jamshedpur. After serving for 23 long years, Atwa Ahir died on 04.11.2003 while he was posted at

Bundu. After his death, petitioner being wife of the deceased prayed for rehabilitation of the family including pensionary benefits, leave encashment

etc. and appointment of her son Mukesh Kumar Gope.

When respondents did not pay any heed to petitioner's request, she moved before this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 3255 of 2004 which was disposed

of on 14.02.2005 by directing the respondents to make payment. When grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, she again moved by filing W.P.

(S) No. 2904 of 2007 which was also disposed of on 20.02.2008. Pursuant to direction of the Court, respondents passed order dated 27.11.2009

holding therein that petitioner is not entitled for retiral benefits. Petitioner had also preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 304 of 2009 which was

however dropped.

Mr. Pradip Gangopadhyay, Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Prakash Sahu strenuously urges that order dated 27.11.2009 is illegal and arbitrary.

Before passing impugned order the respondents have not at all considered the Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ram Prasad

Singh and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and other analogous cases reported in 2005(3) JCR 9. Learned counsel submits that without considering

aforesaid Judgment, the respondents have rejected claim of the petitioner though deceased-husband of the petitioner was a work-charge employee

and in view of Judgment of this Court, deceased was entitled for retiral benefits as he had worked for 23 years.

Per-contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

Mr. Kamlesh, J.C. to learned S.C.-II argues that as service of the deceased was not regularised and as such, petitioner is not entitled for the retiral

benefits of her deceased husband and as such, impugned order is justified. Learned counsel further submits that the amount for which petitioner is

entitled has already been released in her favour.

Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, I find petitioner's case is fully covered by the Full Bench decision of this

Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra).

Para-17 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted herewith:

I, therefore, hold that:

(i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment

and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective

of their dates of appointment. But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled.

(ii) The dependents of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground and entitled to claim appointment on

compassionate ground; and

(iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/ dependants are

entitled to claim death- cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/ family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance

amount, if otherwise fulfills the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment.

Thus, it has clearly been held by the Full Bench of this Court that the work charged employees working against the post in a regular scale of pay, on

the retirement and after death the heirs/ dependents are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits. It has further been held that the work-charge

employees who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible,

have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of

appointment whereas the work-charged employees working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not entitled. It is also crystal clear that the

dependents of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground however, the dependents are entitled for

death-cum-retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance.

In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, office order no. 1707, Dated 27.11.2009, passed by Superintending Engineer,

National Highway Circle, Ranchi by which claim of the petitioner has been rejected, is hereby quashed. I hereby direct the respondents to consider

case of the petitioner for grant of retiral benefits in light of the decision of Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (Supra). It is made clear the

after calculating the entire retiral and other benefits to which petitioner is found to be entitled in light of decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram

Prasad Singh (Supra), must be released within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. As far as prayer

for appointment of petitioner's son on compassionate ground is concerned, in view of decision of Full Bench, the same is rejected.

This writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.