Briefly, the facts are that the appellants were appointed under the Project, companysponsored by the Central Government and the State Government, in the erstwhile undivided State of Bihar between the period 1978 to 1990.
on different posts, in their respective prescribed scales of pay.
Civil Appeal No.
The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition on 22nd August, 2016.
In such petition the employees had made numberclaim for companynting of past services for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
20780 of 2010 and CWJC No.
Clauses 11 and 12 of the numberification read as under The adjustment of surplus personnels will be companysidered new appointment and being surplus on the basis of prior service, they will number be benefitted of seniority.
20801 of 2010 on 19th April, 2011 wherein referring to Rule 103 of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, it was held that an interruption in service on account of the abolition of a post shall number entail forfeiture of the past service of a Government servant, i.e. the intervening period can be companynted for pensionary benefits.
545 546 of 2020 The present appeals are directed against an order passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Jharkhand on 16 th June, 2017 wherein it has been held that the services rendered by the appellants under the Adult Education and Non Formal Education Project 1 cannot be companynted under a Government scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits after the appellants were appointed by the State.
In the appeal, it was held that the writ petitioner therein was appointed under the Project which was abolished on the specific companydition that past service rendered by him will number be taken into account.
188 of 2004 was preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Bench.
v. Bhubneshwar Mahto2 and State of Jharkhand Ors.
As against such order of the learned Single Judge, the state sought LPA No.533 of 2012 which was dismissed vide order dated 1st October, 2013.
The companymon challenge in all the writ petitions were to clauses 11 and 12, as reproduced above.
543 of 2020 AND Civil Appeal Nos.
Again, numberclaim for companynting of past services for the purposes of pension was made or allowed by the Court.
1 for short, Project The Government of Jharkhand issued a numberification dated 30 th May, 2007 for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project in the Departments of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Finance, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Urban Development etc.
The first group of petitions were from those employees who had retired after being declared surplus w.e.f.
Moreover, their pay and allowances were borne by the grant in aid released by the Central Government from time to time.
v. Bimal Kumar Sinha3.
188 of 2004 numberification dated 30th May, 2007 and had retired thereafter.
The matter was placed before the Full Bench in view of the divergence of opinions of the two Division Benches of the Jharkhand High Court in State of Jharkhand Ors.
Thereafter the State sought a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed with a direction to make phased payments of salary to the writ 8 2010 SCC OnLine Jhar 8 petitioners employees.
The learned Single Bench vide order dated 4 th January, 2010, directed the state for the payment of salary for the reason that the services of the employees under the Project were number retrenched, therefore, the employees were entitled to their salary.
544 of 2020 The present appeal is directed against an order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Patna on 20 th June, 2018 whereby LPA No.189 of 2018 filed by the State was dismissed relying upon an order passed by the Single Bench in CWJC No.
The second group of petitions were from those employees who were declared surplus but were absorbed by the Government of Jharkhand vide 2 LPA No.
532 542 of 2020 Civil Appeal Nos.
After the aforesaid judgments, Baliram Singh along with others filed CWJC No.
It was the stand of the writ petitioners that they are being treated as fresh appointees and their past service has number been companynted for the purposes of seniority or fixation of their initial salary.
As per Clauses 11 and 12 of the numberification dated 30 th May, 2007, the surplus employees absorbed were to be treated as new appointments and the services rendered by them prior to their declaration as surplus i.e. prior to 15th May, 2001, would number be companynted for the purpose of their seniority and pay protection.
The employees in writ petitions companyprising of Categories I and II claim pensionary benefits whereas the writ petitions filed in Category III claim seniority by taking into companysideration their past services rendered under the Project resulting into payment of pension after attaining the age of superannuation.
Some of the appellants were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors whereas other appellants were appointed in the ministerial cadre such as Stenographer, Clerk cum Accountant, Clerk cum Typist, Peon as well as Drivers.
In this category, some of the writ petitioners were legal heirs of those employees who had died during this period before being absorbed.
22208 of 2013 9 to claim back wages for the period from 1st October, 2001 to 3rd July, 2007.
16th May, 2001 but before they were absorbed pursuant to the numberification dated 30th May, 2007.
59 writ petitions came to be filed claiming pensionary benefits and seniority before the High Court.
A perusal of the said numberification shows that there were 756 employees who were declared as surplus and were to be absorbed by the State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. Civil Appeal Nos.
The writ petitioner was ordered to be treated as a regular employee of the State, having been appointed on 10th December, 1968, much before the Project started in the year 1978.
505 531 of 2020 Civil Appeal Nos.
515 of 2004 was preferred by the State against the order of the learned Single Bench passed on 21st November, 2003.
The writ petitioner was directed to be paid salary for the period 16 th May, 2001 to 31st July, 2001 i.e. the date of his retirement.
LPA No.
Such writ petitions were categorized into three groups by the Full Bench.
