State of Jharkhand and Others vs Basant Kumar Banerjee and The Accountant General

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO. 1012/2007 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein was allowed and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was directed to take a decision in the matter of payment of invalid pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge, however, has already recorded a finding that the petitioner/respondent herein cannot be denied the benefit of invalid pension once he has been found to have completed more than 11 years of service. Prior to the filing of the writ petition bearing W.P(S) NO. 1012/2007 out of which this appeal arises, the petitioner/respondent herein had taken several grounds before the Court by filing one writ petition or the other but all the writ petitions were disposed of with some observations and at one stage, the contempt petition was dropped. Finally the petitioner/respondent could never succeed in securing an order for grant of pensionary benefit on account of his invalidity by computing the period of 11 years of service which he had discharged with the State of Jharkhand. Finally, when the Writ petition bearing W.P(S) NO. 1012/2007 was filed, the learned Single Judge was pleased to take note of the fact that the petitioner/respondent had filed an application on 31.01.1968 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition and informed the Circle Officer. Tamar that he had suffered fracture and was also suffering from fyleria due to which he was physically and mentally not fit in discharging his duty and for the said reason, he sought pre-mature retirement.

The appellant-State failed to respond to the application of the petitioner/respondent but the petitioner/respondent abstained from duty. He, however, was not granted any pensionary benefit which prompted him to file successive writ petitions before this Court but although all the writ petitions were disposed of one after the other, he could not succeed in getting an order of pension.

The appellant-State vehemently contested the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner/respondent was not entitled to pensionary benefit as he had resigned from service and under the Rules, pensionary benefit can be made available to an employee on resignation provided he served for more than ten years. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner/respondent having resigned from service and having not discharged duty for 11 years, he was not entitled to pensionary benefit.

Having tested the argument of the appellant-State, in the light of the facts stated in the impugned order, we have noticed that the petitioner/respondent had not submitted any resignation but had informed that he was medically unfit and was not in a position to discharge duty. It was, therefore, certainly expected of the appellant-State to pass an order rejecting the prayer or allowing the same. But the appellant-State merely kept the application of the petitioner/respondent pending and thereafter, he, on account of his incapacity, did not discharge duty. Nevertheless, he has already served for more than 10 years and under the Rule, an employee is held entitled for pension on account of his invalidity described as ''invalid pension'' provided he has served for ten years. The petitioner/respondent admittedly, has served for more than ten years but has stopped discharging duty before completion of 11 years. But he had informed the authority that he was suffering incapacity on account of a fracture in his leg and was also suffering from fyleria. It was therefore obligatory on the part of the appellant-State to verify the correctness of the fact if at all, it was of the view that his application should be rejected. In addition, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the appellant-State having not referred the petitioner/respondent for medical examination in order to reject his application, it could not be permitted to raise a plea that the petitioner/respondent was not invalid.

Under the circumstance, when the petitioner/respondent has been able to establish that he had discharged duty for more than 11 years and had submitted an application to relieve him from service on account of his invalidity, obviously, he could not have been denied the pensionary benefit. The petitioner/respondent therefore is entitled to the pensionary benefit under the category of ''invalid pension scheme'' on the ground that he had discharged duty for more than 10 years.

Thus, we find no substance in this appeal and hence it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.