Shyam Kishore Prasad vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of gratuity amount at the rate fixed by the Govt. decisions and University law/Statute w.e.f. 1.4.1997 and to quash that part of the letter No. 601 dated 6.7.2006, issued by the respondent No. 4 fixing 15.11.2000 as effective date for payment of gratuity at par with Govt. servant to the University teachers.

The facts, In brief, are stated as under;

The petitioner retired from services on 31.1.1998 from Ramgarh College, Ramgarh which comes under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, and the same comes under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Control, State of Jharkhand w.e.f. 15.11.2000 after the Reorganization Act came into force.

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner retired from the Ramgarh College, Ramgarh which now comes under the jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Even as per the agreement entered into between the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar and Jharkhand, financial liability will be borne by the concerned State under which jurisdiction the persons are working or have retired. However, the same is not in dispute in the present case and the State of Jharkhand has also agreed to that effect and the State of Bihar also filed affidavit in this regard.

The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefit as extended vide notification dated 22.12.1999, which is applicable to all such pensionaries who retired from 1.1.1996 to 1.4.1997. He has referred to "clause 10" of the Bihar Pension Niyamawali to support his contention which is quoted as under:

10- cdk;s jkf''k dk Hkqxrku % jkT; ljdkj ds isa''kuHkksxh tks fnukad 1 tuojh 1996 dskcn lsok fuo`Rr gks pqds gS vkSj ftuds isa''ku@ikfjokfjd issa''ku dk fu/kkZj.k iwoZ fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k gS] ds cdk;s jkf''k dk Hkqxrku foRr foHkkx }kjk fnukad 1&4&1997 ds ckn le; le; ij fuxZr egaxkbZ jkgr ,oa vUrfje jkgr ls fuxZr ladYiks }kjk Lohd`r njksa ls Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf''k ,oa iwoZ fu/kkZfjr isa''ku dh jkf''k dks laeftr dj fd;k tk;sxkA

Thus, he is entitled to enhanced gratuity amount w.e.f 1.4.1997 at par with Govt. servants.

The counsel for the respondent State submits that as per the impugned order passed, which is sought to be challenged, the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced gratuity amount.

Be that as it may, it is well settled that a circular or office order can not prevent or stop beneficiary provision enacted under the statute/university law. There is no dispute about the fact that this was made applicable w.e.f 1.4.1997. Thus the impugned order appears to be on the face of it, erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

This issue was also considered by the learned Single Judge in a case reported in Baleshwar Ojha Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, and the view taken upheld. The question is not what is the financial implication of pre-dating the benefits of gratuity but the question is can a promised benefit be postponed contrary to the promise made in the statute. In law I have no other option but to hold that once by statute it has been held out that the employees of the said university shall be entitled to the gratuity at the same rate as applicable to the State Government employees, whenever there is a change by reason of the statute itself, the employees of the said university become entitled to enhanced gratuity with effect from 1st April, 1997.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned letter No. 601 dated 6.7.2006 is accordingly quashed and the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential relief as prayed for within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.