Summary
The Supreme Court rejected Jharkhand employees’ claim to count service under a time-bound adult-education project towards pension following fresh State appointments. Project employment was outside the regular governmental cadre, and the 1969 circular for temporary government servants did not apply. Salary relief for the surplus period did not establish pension entitlement. A separate Bihar appeal was disposed of under Baliram Singh, recognising that Bihar’s policy expressly treated past service differently.
Issues
- Whether prior project service qualified for pension under the Jharkhand rules and the 1969 circular.
- Whether earlier salary relief or the Bihar-policy decisions established the claimed Jharkhand entitlement.
- How the separate Bihar appeal should be disposed of.
Provisions considered
- Rules 31, 38, 58 and 59, Jharkhand Pension RulesThe Court assessed the nature of project employment and the absence of the qualifying governmental and substantive permanent service requirements. (¶¶ 13, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- The project served a specified purpose for a limited period and its employees were not members of a State cadre. The governmental-service and substantive permanent-employment requirements of Rule 58 were not met; government payment alone did not suffice. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The 1969 circular concerned temporary or officiating government servants, not persons engaged under this project. The Court treated the Jharkhand absorption as fresh appointments without the claimed past-service entitlement and rejected the pension claim. (¶¶ 10, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26)
- Asgar Ali concerned salary for a period without formal retrenchment, not counting past service for pension. That monetary relief did not adjudicate or establish pension entitlement. Bihar’s policy expressly counting past service was distinguishable from the Jharkhand claims. (¶¶ 16, 23, 24, 25)
- The separate Bihar appeal concerned a different policy context. Because the earlier High Court reasoning relied upon had been displaced by the Supreme Court’s Baliram Singh decision, that appeal was disposed of in the same terms as Baliram Singh. (¶¶ 27, 28)
Result
Civil Appeals 505–531, 532–542, 543 and 545–546 of 2020 dismissed, affirming rejection of the Jharkhand claims. Civil Appeal 544 of 2020 concerning Bihar disposed of in the same terms as State of Bihar v. Baliram Singh.