PARMESHWAR NANDA ETC. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 07-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 680
680
PARMESHWAR NANDA ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH
CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 505-531 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Jharkhand Pension Rules – rr. 58, 59 & 31, 38 – Appellants
were appointed under a Project, co-sponsored by Central
Government and State Government, in the erstwhile undivided State
of Bihar between 1978-1990 – Appellants’ services fell in the
successor State of Jharkhand, formed in 2000 – Government of
India by a policy decision closed the Project – Govt. of Jharkhand
declared the employees to be surplus w.e.f. 16.05.2001 – It issued
notification for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project
in various Departments – As per Clauses 11 & 12 of the said
notification, surplus employees absorbed were to be treated as new
appointments and services rendered by them prior to their
declaration as surplus were not be counted for the purpose of their
seniority and pay protection – 59 writ petitions were filed inter alia
claiming pensionary benefits, commonly challenging Clauses 11 &
12 – High Court declined the claim for pension – Held: Entire case
is based upon r.59 and Circular dated 12.08.1969 of the erstwhile
State of Bihar – r.59 empowers the State Government to declare any
specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted service to
qualify for pension, provided that the salary is paid from general
revenue – r.58 contemplates three conditions required to be satisfied
for services to be pensionable – At best, the appellants satisfied
only the third condition therein – Further, Circular dated12.08.1969
deals with pensionary benefits to a temporary govt. servant –
Appellants, engaged under the Project i.e. a scheme, were never
appointed by the Government either on temporary or permanent
basis – Benefit of such Circular cannot be claimed by them – Still
further, notification for absorption dtd. 30.05.07 and subsequent
letter of appointments do not contain any condition that the services
rendered by appellants under the Project shall qualify for pension
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
681
– Policy decision contemplates that it is a fresh appointment and no
benefit either of seniority or pay protection shall be given –
Appellants have not disputed such condition of appointment –
Circular dated 12.08.1969 is not even remotely applicable to the
employees appointed under the Project as the very nature of the
appointment was for a specific purpose and not for unlimited period
of time – No error in the order passed by High Court – C.A.No. 544
of 2020 is disposed of in the same terms as in Baliram Singh case –
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – r.103.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The entire case is based upon Rule 59 of the
Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and the Circular dated 12th
August, 1969 of the erstwhile State of Bihar. Rule 59 of the Rules
empowers the State Government to declare any specified kind of
service rendered by one in a non-gazetted service to qualify for
pension, provided, that the salary is paid from the general
revenue. Rule 58 of the Rules contemplates the conditions that
are required to be satisfied for services to be pensionable. The
appellants were appointed under a specific Scheme i.e. the Project.
Such project was not a permanent establishment of the
Government as it was meant for a specific purpose funded by the
Central Government for a specified period. The appointment of
the appellants under the Project is not a part of any cadre of the
State Government. Therefore, the first condition of Rule 58 that
the service rendered must be under the State Government is not
satisfied by the appellants having been appointed under the
Project. The second condition that employment must be
substantive and permanent is again not satisfied by the appellants
as the employment of the appellants was under the Project. A
permanent post in terms of Rule 31 of the Rules means a post
carrying a definite rate of pay and that is sanctioned without a
time limit. The appointment of the appellants under the project
was not in a pay scale nor was it sanctioned without a time limit.
Further, substantive pay is defined in Rule 38 of the Rules as a
person who is appointed in a cadre. At best, the appellants satisfied
only the third condition i.e. that they were paid by the Government.
If the first and second conditions mentioned in Rule 58 of the
Rules are not satisfied, the S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.