Introduction:
In a landmark ruling impacting thousands of government workers in Jharkhand, the High Court of Jharkhand, presided over by Justice Deepak Roshan, has held that temporary employees who have rendered over 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts with regular pay are entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand. The decision came in W.P.(S) No. 136 of 2020, filed by Surendra Nath Mahto and others against the State of Jharkhand and its officers, after the petitioners were denied pension upon retirement despite decades of uninterrupted service in the Revenue Division, Ranchi. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Saurabh Shekhar, argued that they had served for over 15–30 years on sanctioned posts such as Periodical Rent Collector, Clerk, and Amin, received regular pay and allowances, and were never classified as casual or seasonal staff. The respondents, represented by Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V, maintained that the petitioners were purely temporary appointees, never regularised, and thus not entitled to pension. After examining the facts, relevant government resolutions, and judicial precedents, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, directing the State to treat their service as pensionable and grant all benefits within four months.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners presented a compelling case built on the principle that substance must prevail over form. While their appointment orders used the term “temporary,” they emphasised that their actual work circumstances reflected regular employment on sanctioned and vacant posts within the Revenue Division, Ranchi. Their positions — such as Periodical Rent Collector, Clerk, and Amin — were not transient roles but part of the permanent administrative structure.
They contended that from the outset, they were given specific pay scales and dearness allowance, paid from the regular establishment head, and their service continued without a single break for over three decades in some cases. The classification as “temporary” was, they argued, only a label that did not reflect the reality of their duties and entitlements. Crucially, their names were never included in casual or seasonal rolls, underlining the regular nature of their employment.
To substantiate their claims, they relied on a certificate issued by the Deputy Collector, Revenue Division (Canal) on 16.07.2024, certifying uninterrupted service exceeding 15 years. They invoked Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (as adopted by Jharkhand), which explicitly provides that temporary employees who have rendered more than 15 years of continuous service are eligible for pension and gratuity benefits. They also referred to Government Memos dated 12.08.1969 and 13.01.1975, which reaffirmed this entitlement.
The petitioners argued that the denial of pension violated the principles of fairness and equality, as other similarly placed employees had been granted pension under the same provisions. They cited Supreme Court precedent in Govt. of Gujarat (Fisheries Terminal Dept.) v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, where it was held that once continuous service is claimed and supported by credible documents, the burden shifts to the employer to disprove it — a burden the State had failed to discharge in this case.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The State of Jharkhand, through its counsel, maintained a rigid stance grounded in procedural regularity. It contended that the petitioners’ appointments were purely temporary, made without any formal recruitment process, and on a need-based basis. Such appointments, according to the State, were not made against permanent rolls and were never regularised, which was asserted as a prerequisite for pension eligibility.
The State argued that under Rule 73 of the Bihar Pension Rules, only regular pensionable service qualifies for pension, and temporary service without regularisation could not be counted. They maintained that the petitioners were essentially seasonal employees, whose work pattern and appointment nature excluded them from the definition of continuous pensionable service.
Furthermore, the State claimed that the petitioners’ names were absent from the department’s permanent establishment records, undermining their claim to be part of the regular workforce. It argued that merely serving for a long duration without fulfilling the formal requirements of recruitment and regularisation does not, by itself, create a vested right to pension. The State thus urged the Court to dismiss the petition and uphold the department’s decision.
Court’s Judgment:
The Jharkhand High Court began by examining the factual matrix of the case. It found that the petitioners’ appointments were made against sanctioned and vacant posts in the Revenue Division and that they had served for periods ranging from 15 to over 30 years without any break. Payment from the regular establishment head, coupled with the grant of standard pay scales and dearness allowance, demonstrated that the nature of their employment was substantially regular, despite the “temporary” designation in the appointment orders.
The Court placed significant weight on the Deputy Collector’s certificate, which explicitly confirmed uninterrupted service exceeding 15 years. Invoking the principle laid down in Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, the Court observed that once the petitioners established continuous service with official certification, the burden shifted to the State to disprove it. The respondents, however, failed to produce any documentary evidence or even a counter affidavit to challenge the veracity of the petitioners’ claims.
Addressing the classification issue, the Court held that the petitioners’ service could not be equated with “casual” or “seasonal” employment. The duration, sanctioned nature of the posts, and continuous payment from the regular head contradicted the State’s assertions.
Turning to the legal provisions, the Court relied squarely on Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which extends pension and gratuity benefits to temporary employees completing more than 15 years of continuous service. It also cited the Government Resolutions dated 12.08.1969 and 13.01.1975, which reinforce this entitlement. The Court dismissed the State’s reliance on Rule 73, noting that it could not override the specific benefit granted by Rule 59.
In its concluding remarks, the Court held that the petitioners had a legally enforceable right to pensionary benefits and that the respondents’ refusal was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It allowed the writ petition, directing the State to treat the petitioners’ service as qualifying for pension and to grant pension, gratuity, and all consequential benefits, including arrears, within four months from the date of the order.