Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 July, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:19631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4464 of 2025
......
1.Shambhu Ram, aged about 62 years, Son of Fekan
Ram, Resident of Village – Adhaura, P.O. – Adhura, P.S. –
Nagar Untari, District – Garhwa.
2. Manorma Kumari @ Manorama Devi, aged about 61
years, Daughter of Late Satynarayan Saha, Resident of
Village – Palkot, P.O. – Palkot, P.S. – Palkot, District –
Gumla.
3. Prit Nath Mahto, aged about 61 years, Son of Manbodh
Mahto, Resident of Village Paramdih, P.O. B. Nawadih,
P.S. -Rahe, District – Ranchi.
4.Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Tapeshwar Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Village – Ghure,
P.O. – Herhang, P.S. – Herhang, District – Latehar.
5.Uttam Kumar Datta, aged about 63 years, Son of Late
Arati Kusum Datta, Resident of Village Ranishwar, P.O.
Ranishwar, P.S. – Ranishwar, District – Dumka.
6.Hanuk Bhengra, aged about 61 years, Son of Late
Agustus Bhengra, Resident of Village -Bundumamail,
P.O. – Jate, P.S. – Murhu, District – Khunti.
7.Maheshwar Sardar, Aged about 61 years, Son of
Gobind Sardar, Resident of Village – Pahdiya Sai, P.O. –
Kowali, P.S. -Kowali, Block. – Potka-2, District – East
Singhbhum.
8.Sangram Hansda, aged about 60 years, Son of Karu
Hansda, Resident of Village – Fuljhari, P.O. – Badia, P.S. –
Musabani, District – East Singhbhum.
9. Prahlad Koiri, aged about 63 years, Son of Late
Bhushan Koiri, Resident of Village Baluadih, P.O. Jareya,
P.S. Sonahatu, District – Ranchi.
10. Tomnath Singh, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Meghnath Singh, Resident of Village Lota, P.O. Kone, P.S.
– Karra, District Khunti.
11. Sushil Kumar Singh, aged about 60 years, Son of
Indrajit Singh, Resident of Village – Murma Kala, P.O. –
Murma Kala, P.S. Untari Road, District – Palamu.
12. Fahim Alam, aged about 62 years, Son of Khalil
Ahmand, Resident of Village Purani Bhatti Muhalla P.O.
Bishrampur, P.S. – Bishrampur, District – Palamu.
13.Chandramani Kumari, aged about 61 years, Daughter
of Johan Oraon, Wife of Sukra Oraon, Resident of Village
Bansari Guriyatoli, P.O. Senha, P.S. Senha, District
Lohardaga.
1
2026:JHHC:19631
14. Renuka Dhivar, aged about 60 years, Wife of Krity
Dhibar, Resident of Village Tasra Basti, P.O. Motinagar
Sindri, P.S.Sindri, District – Dhanbad.
15. Pushpa Devi, aged about 62 years, Wife of Lalit Lal
Choudhary, Resident of Village – Pirtol, P.O. – Angara,
P.S. Angara, District – Ranchi.
16. Amsu Baraik, aged about 64 years, Son of Rathu
Baraik, Resident of Village Besarjara, P.O. Barwadih, P.S.
Kolebira, District – Simdega.
17. Md. Nisar Ahmad, aged about 60 years, Son of Md.
Basiruddin, Resident of Village – Rajabhitha, P.O. –
Koridih-2, P.S. – Narayanpur, District – Jamtara.
18.Madho Sawaiyan, aged about 62 years, Son Late Kanu
Sawaiyan, Resident of Village – Purnia, P.O. – Chitimiti,
P.S. – Manjhari, District – West Singhbhum.
19. Khetra Mohan Mahto, aged about 65 years, Son of
Dukhi Mahto, Resident of Village – Basantpur, P.O. –
Pogra, P.S. -Silli, District – Ranchi.
20. Sidheswar Sahu, aged about 61 years, Son of Late
Bigal Sahu, Resident of Village Childag, P.O. Childag,
P.S. Angara, District – Ranchi.
21. Yamuna Prasad Singh, aged about 61 years, Son of
Sri Jhari Singh, Resident of Village – Khukhra, P.O. –
Khukhra, P.S. -Bero, District – Ranchi.
22. Akhilesh Barjo, aged about 61 years, Son of Late
Sukhram Barjo, Resident of Village Raidih, P.O. Barposh,
P.S. Manoharpur, District – West Singhbhum.
23. Subhash Chandra Goarain, aged about 62 years, Son
of Late Nagendra Nath Gorain, Resident of Village –
Patharkua, P.O. – Keliasole, P.S. – Nirsha, District –
Dhanbad.
24. Thaneshwar Oraon, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Pardhan Oraon, Resident of Village – Buti Dumber Toli,
P.O. -Buti, P.S. Senha, District – Lohardaga.
25.Bhauwa Bhagat, aged about 62 years, Son of Lala
Bhagat, Resident of Village – Tangarbansali, P.O.
Tangarbansali, P.S. Mandar, District – Ranchi. 25.
26. Dhani Ram Mahato, aged about 63 years, Son of
Prabhat Kumar Mahato, Resident of Village –
Raghunathpur, P.O. -Baliapur, P.S. – Baliapur, District –
Dhanbad.
27. Dashrath Sardar, aged about 60 years, Son of Bharat
Sardar, Resident of Village Rankakocha, P.O. Sini, P.S.
Seraikella, District – Seraikella – Kharswan.
2
2026:JHHC:19631
28. Sharat Kumar Sahu, aged about 61 years, Son of
Trilochan Sahu, Resident of Village Raidih, P.O. Raidih,
P.S. Kharsawan, District – Seraikela- Kharsawan.
29. Arun Chandra Mandal, aged about 60 years Son of
Fani Lal Mandal, Resident of Village Sangajuri, P.Ο.
Baragholjore, P.S. – Nala, District – Jamtara.
30.Naika Oraon, aged about 61 years, Son of Jita Oraon,
Resident of Village – Bhurso Bengwa Toli, P.O. – Bhurso,
P.S. – Bhurso Sisai, District – Gumla.
31. Ratan Lal Karmali, aged about 60 years, Son of
Ramdhan Karmali, Resident of Village – Jangi, P.O. –
Sosokalan, P.S. -Gola, District – Ramgarh.
32. Shambhu Prasad, aged about 60 years, Son of Gopal
Sahu, Resident of village Toto, Near Kali Mandir Road,
P.S. Gumla, District – Gumla.
33. Nilambar Sahu, aged about 62 years, Son of Late
Parmeshwar Sahu, Resident of Baghma Murumkela, P.O.
-Baghma, P.S. Palkot and District – Gumla.
34. Kiran Kumari, aged about 60 years, Wife of Vinod
Kumar Pathak, Resident of village Kamath Palak, P.O.
Mohanpur, P.S. – Mohanpur and District – Deoghar.
35, Madhusudan Ram, aged about 61 years, Son of Late
Rambriksha Ram, Resident of village – Jharnakhurd, P.O.
-Teesibar, P.S. – Pandu and District – Palamau.
36. Deobansh Ram, aged about 62 years, Son of Late Kail
Ram, Resident of village – Bishrampur, P.O. –
Bishrampur, P.S. -Bishrampur and District – Palamau.
37. Rajkeshwar Singh, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Indradeo Singh, Resident of village – Salatua, P.O. –
Salatua, P.S.-Chainpur and District – Palamau.
38. Suryanarayan Pandey, aged about 61 years, Son of
Late Dwarika Pandey, Resident of village Karakat, P.O.
Shahpur and P.S. – Chainpur and District – Palamau.
39. Umakant Ram, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Mahesh Ram, Resident of village – Saguna, P.O. and P.S.
– Patan and District Palamau.
40. Dashrath Baitha, aged about 60 years, Son of Late
Rambriksha Baitha, Resident of village – Sildakhurd, P.O.
-Khairadohar, P.S. – Naudihabazar and District –
Palamau.
41. Ramchandra Ram, aged about 60 years, Son of
Bishwanath Ram, Resident of village Morbe, P.O.- Morbe,
P.S. Manjhiaon and District – Garhwa.
42. Nandlal Sardar, aged about 61 years, Son of Late
Munsi Sardar, Resident of village Patapani, P.O. – Chakri,
P.S. -Kowali and District – East Singhbhum.
3
2026:JHHC:19631
43. Harimohan Ray Baraik, aged about 61 years, Son of
Mahadev Ray Baraik, Resident of village – Simhatu
Bakhri Toli, P.O. – Jilutoli, P.S. – Bano and District –
Simdega.
44. Bernadette Maghia, aged about 61 years, Wife of Late
Theodar Minz, Resident of village – Pabura, P.O. -Bano,
P.S. – Bano, and District – Simdega.
…. Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
having its office at Ist Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. -Dhurwa and District – Ranchi.
2., The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Project
Bhawan, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Dhurwa and District –
Ranchi.
3. The Director, Directorate of Primary Education,
Department of School Education & Literacy, officiating
from Project Bhawan, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Dhurwa and
District – Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum,
Chaibasa, P.O., P.S. and District – West Singhbhum.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O., P.S. and District – West
Singhbhum.
6. The District Superintendent of Education, Latehar,
P.O., P.S. and District – Latehar.
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi,
P.O., P.S. and District – Ranchi.
8. The District Superintendent of Education, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S. and District – East
Singhbhum.
9. The District Superintendent of Education, Khunti,
P.O., P.S. and District – Khunti.
10. The District Superintendent of Education, Palamau,
P.O., P.S. and District – Palamau.
11. The District Superintendent of Education,
Hazaribagh, P.Ο., P.S. and District – Hazaribagh.
12. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra,
P.O., P.S. and District – Chatra.
13. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega,
P.O., P.S. and District – Simdega.
14. The District Superintendent of Education, Saraikela
Kharsawan, P.O., P.S. and District – Saraikela
Kharsawan.
15. The District Superintendent of Education, Gumla,
P.O., P.S. and District – Gumla. …..Respondent (s)
……
4
2026:JHHC:19631
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr Adv.
Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C.(Mines)II
……
7/03.07.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners praying therein for a direction upon the
respondents to count their past services, rendered by them
as Para Teachers for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as
all the petitioners retired from the post of Intermediate
Trained Teachers.
3. In nutshell, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are
entitled for pensionary benefits including pension/family
pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GIS and GPF etc.
counting their contractual services rendered by them.
Background:
4. All the petitioners were initially appointed as Para
Teachers which was contractual in nature. While the
petitioners were rendering their services as contractual
employees, advertisements were issued by the respondents
for appointment of Intermediate Trained Teachers. 50%
posts thereof were reserved/earmarked for Para Teachers.
The condition in the advertisements was that if Para
Teachers are claiming reservation of 50%, they have to
satisfy the authority that they have rendered uninterrupted
service of two years at least as Para Teachers. All the
petitioners, since eligible in all respects, applied for such
appointment. The petitioners faced the rigorous selection
process and thereafter they were appointed on the post of
5
2026:JHHC:19631
Intermediate Trained Teachers. The service excerpts of the
petitioners, for the sake of brevity, are as follows:-
Sl Name of Date of Date of Length of Date of Date of Length of
. Petitioner Joining relieving service as Joining Retireme services as
as Para from para as nt from intermediat
Teacher para teacher intermed the post e trained
teacher iate of teachers
trained intermed
teachers iate
trained
teachers
1. Shambhu Ram 24.11.20 27.12.20 12Years 1 28.12.20 30.06.20 7 Years 6
03 15 Month 3 15 23 month 2
Days Days
2. Manorama 15.11.20 5.01.201 12 Years 1 06.1.201 31.05.20 7 Years 4
Kumari 03 6 Month 21 6 23 Month 25
Days Days
3. Prit Nath Mahto 27.06.20 29.12.20 8 years 6 30.12.20 31.12.20 8 years 1
07 15 months 2 15 23 Day
days
4. Manoj Kumar 16.07.20 27.12.20 10 Years 5 28.12.20 31.03.20 9 Years 3
Jaiswal 05 15 Months 11 15. 25 Months 3
Days Days
5. Uttam Kumar 01.10.20 01.01.20 8 Years 3 2.1.2016 31.01.20 6 Years 29
Gupta 07 16 Months 22 Days
6. Hanuk Bhengra 03.01.20 01.01.20 10 years 02.1.201 31.05.20 8 Years 4
05 16 11 Month 6 24 Months 29
29 Days Days
7. Maheshwar 15.03.20 29.12.20 10 years 9 30.12.20 30.04.20 8 Years 4
Sardar 05 15 Months 14 15 24 Months
Days
8. Sangram 01.07.20 03.01.20 11 Years 6 04.01.20 30.06.20 8 years 5
Hansda 04 16 Months 2 16 24 months 26
days days
9. Prahlad Koiri 11.12.20 30.12.20 9 years 19 31.12.20 31.10.20 6 years 10
06 15 days 15 22 months
1 Tomnath Singh 15.11.20 01.01.20 13 Years 1 02.1.201 31.01.20 9 Years 29
0 02 16 Month 17 6 25 Days
Days
1 Sushil Kumar 01.08.20 29.12.20 10 Years 4 30.12.20 30.11.20 8 Years 11
1. Singh 05 15 Months 28 15 24 Months
Days
1 Fahim Alam 30.03.20 14.10.20 8 Years 6 15.10.20 28.02.20 8 Years 4
2. 06 14 Months 14 14 23 months 13
Days days
1 Chandramani 04.04.20 30.12.20 13 Years 8 31.12.20 31.08.20 7 years 8
3. Kumari 02 15 Months 26 15 23 months
Days
1 Renuka Dhivar 08.11.20 10.01.20 12 years 2 11.01.20 31.10.20 8 Years 9
4. 03 16 months 2 16 24 Months 20
days days
1 Pushpa Devi 10.11.20 04.01.20 12 Years 1 05.01.20 31.08.20 6 Years 7
5. 03 16 month 15 16 22 moths 26
days days
1 Amsu Baraik 01.05.20 21.1020 8 years 5 22.10.20 31.08.20 07 years 10
6. 06 14 months 20 14 22 months 9
days days
1 Md. Nisar 01.09.20 17.01.20 12 years 4 18.01.20 30.11.20 8 years 10
7 Ahmed 03 16 months 16 16 24 months 12
days days
1 Madho 01.11.20 12.02.20 9 Years 3 13.02.20 31.12.20 6 years 10
8. Sawaiyan 06 16 Months 11 16 22 months 18
days days
6
2026:JHHC:19631
1 Khetra Mohan 28.01.20 04.01.20 7 years 11 05.1.201 31.11.20 4 years 10
9 Mahto 08 16 months 7 6 20 months 26
days days
2 Sidheshwar 28.1.200 22.12.20 9 Years 11 23.12.20 31.10.20 7 years 10
0 Sahu 6 15 Months 4 15 23 months 8
days days
2 Yamuna Prasad 03.12.20 22.12.20 11 Years 23.12.20 31.03.20 8 years 3
1 Singh 04 15 19 days 15 24 months 8
days
2 Akhilesh Barjo 02.11.20 30.12.20 7 Years 1 31.12.20 31.08.20 7 years 8
2 08 15 month 28 15 23 months
days
2 Shubhash 19.04.20 05.01.20 9 Years 8 06.01.20 31.05.20 6 Years 4
3 Chandra Gorain 06 16 Months 17 16 22 months 25
Days days
2 Thaneshwar 15.11.20 05.01.20 11 Years 1 06.1.201 31.01.20 9 Years 25
4 Oraon 03 16 month 21 6 25 Days
Days
2 Bhauwa Bhagat 17.07.20 30.12.20 12 Years 5 31.12.20 30.06.20 7 Years 5
5 03 15 Month 13 15 23 months 30
Days days
2 Dhani Ram 08.01.20 30.12.20 8 years 11 31.12.20 28.02.20 6 years 1
6 Mahto 07 15 months 22 15 22 month 28
days days
2 Dashrath 01.11.20 03.01.20 13 years 2 04.01.20 31.10.20 8 years 9
7 Sardar 02 16 Months 2 16 24 months 27
days days
2 Sharad Kumar 19.04.20 29.01.20 6 Years 9 30.01.20 29.02.20 9 years 30
8 Sahu 08 15 Months 10 15 24 days
Days
2 Arun Chandra 03.01.20 01.01.20 8 Years 11 02.01.20 31.01.20 9 year 29
9 Mandal 07 16 months 29 16 25 dyas
days
3 Nayak Oraon 01.11.20 14.07.20 16 Years 8 15.07.20 30.11.20 5 years 4
0 02 19 Months 13 19 24 months 15
days ` days
3 Ratan Lal 14.05.20 17.01.20 10 years 8 18.01.20 31.03.20 9 years 2
1 Karmali 05 16 months 3 16 25 months 2
days days
3 Shambhu 01.11.20 05.01.20 11 Years 2 06.1.201 28.02.20 9 years 1
2 Prasad 04 16 Months 4 6 15 month 22
Days Days
3 Nilambar Sahu 17.11.20 25.01.20 12 years 2 26.01.20 31.10.20 6 Years 9
3 03 16 months 8 16 22 months 5
days days
3 Kiran Kumari 04.12.20 03.01.20 12 Years 1 04.01.20 31.05.20 9 Years 4
4 03 16 Month 30 16 25 Months 27
Days days
3 Madhusudan 17.10.20 22.12.20 13 Years 2 23.12.20 31.10.20 8 Years 10
5 Ram 02 15 Months 5 15 24 months 8
Days days
3 Deobansh Ram 14.04.20 21.12.20 12 Years 8 22.12.20 30.06.20 7 years 6
6 03 15 months 7 15 23 months 8
Days Days
3 Rajkeshwar 02.12.20 21.12.20 13 Years 22.12.20 31.12.20 9 Years 9
7 Singh 02 15 19 Days 15 24 Days
3 Surya Narayn 02.03.20 21.12.20 12 Years 9 22.12.20 31.03.20 8 Years 3
8 Pandey 23 15 Months 19 15 24 Months 9
Days Days
3 Uma Kant Ram 01.08.20 22.12.20 10 Years 4 23.12.20 31.01.20 9 years 1
9 05 15 Months 21 15 25 month 8
Days days
4 Dashrath 01.08.20 26.12.20 10 years 4 27.12.20 31.01.20 9 Years
0 Baitha 05 15 months 25 15 25 1month 4
days days
7
2026:JHHC:19631
4 Ram Chandra 16.01.20 06.1.201 11 years 07.01.20 31.05.20 9 years 4
1 Ram 04 6 11 months 16` 25 months 24
21 days days
4 Nandlal Sardar 17.01.20 04.02.20 10 years 05.02.20 30.06.20 8 Years 4
2 05 15 18 days 15 23 months 25
days
4 Harimohan Ray 10.01.20 20.12.20 9 years 11 21.12.20 30.11.20 8 years 11
3 Baraik 06 15 moths 10 15 14 months 9
days days
4 Bernadette 14.02.20 30.12.20 11 years 31.12.20 31.07.20 8 Years 7
4 Maghia 04 15 10 months 15 24 Months
16 days
5. The case of the petitioners is that since they rendered
much more than two years uninterruptedly as contractual
employees on the post of Para Teachers, the services
rendered as Para Teachers, may be temporary/contractual,
is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary
benefits. Experience certificates while working as Para
Teachers of some of the petitioners are on record as
Annexure- 3 Series. After the petitioners were duly relieved
from their contractual appointment as Para Teachers, they
were permitted to join on the post of Intermediate Trained
Teachers. The petitioners have placed on record the
appointment letter of one of the petitioners in the shape of
Annexure-4. In this way, the petitioners continued on the
contractual posts uninterruptedly from the date of their
appointment and they continued as such till they were
taken into regular establishment. After serving for more
than4-9 years, they retired from the post of Intermediate
Trained Teachers.
Submission of Petitioners:
6. Learned Senior Counsel Ajit Kumar appearing for the
petitioners submits that it is by now well settled that the
temporary/contractual services rendered by a person
followed by regular appointment is required to be counted
for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He places heavy
8
2026:JHHC:19631
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516. It
has been submitted that the employee, the petitioner in
that case, was working as a work-charged employee. His
case was that the period rendered as work charged service
be counted for the purpose of grant of pension by adding
such period under the qualifying service. He has basically
relied on paragraphs 33 and 34 read with para 36 of the
judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra).
7. Mr. Kumar has further relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023,
decided on 27.03.2023. He submits that while relying upon
Prem Singh judgment (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court held that the period rendered as temporary service in
the work-charged establishment has to be counted for the
purpose of pension. The Division Bench of this Court set
aside the order of the learned Single Judge while issuing a
writ of mandamus to calculate such period and pay entire
benefits with 6% simple interest.
8. This order was challenged by the State before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP (Civil) Diary
No.(s) 37107 of 2023, but the same was dismissed on
14.05.2024.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further
relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs.
Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 in order to
submit that even in a case where the period of contractual
employment was ousted from the purview of counting the
period of qualifying service under the extent Rules, the
9
2026:JHHC:19631
Hon’ble Supreme Court gave harmonious construction to
the relevant rules, being Rule 2 and 17 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and held that if the employee was working on
contract basis and came to regular establishment later on,
are entitled for counting such period of contractual service
for the purpose of pension. Said judgement in the case of
Sheela Devi (supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Others Vs.
Union of India & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973.
Learned Senior Counsel Ajit Kumar submits that relying
upon the judgment in the case of Sheela Devi (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court recently reiterated the same view with a
direction to the respondents in that case to count the
services of contractual/temporary period for the purpose of
pension.
10. Learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance
upon Rules 56 and 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule apart
from other provisions of the said Rule to contend that the
temporary/contractual period is required to be counted for
the purpose of pension as contractual employment was
followed by regular appointment.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned
Counsel submits that the writ petitioners were though
initially appointed/engaged as contractual employee in the
shape of Para Teachers but later on after facing the
selection process, they came in the regular establishment
in the same department, imparting education in the same
manner as they were discharging as Para Teachers, are
entitled for counting their past services of contractual
employment for the purpose of pension.
Submission of Respondents:
10
2026:JHHC:19631
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of
Jharkhand, submits that the writ petition lacks merit and
the same is fit to be dismissed. He submits that the
contractual employment rendered by the petitioners could
not be permitted to be counted for the purpose of
pensionary benefits of the petitioners. He further submits
that the petitioners were working under a Scheme and
thereafter they appeared in the selection process pursuant
to Advertisements and since they have not completed 10
years of service, which is qualifying service for the purpose
of pension, they are not entitled for pensionary benefits.
12. Learned Counsel for the State has relied upon
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parmeshwar Nanda Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others,
reported in (2020) 12 SCC 131. The submission of the
learned counsel for the State is that in the case of
Parmeshwar Nanda (supra), the petitioners were working
under Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project
which was closed. After closure of the project, they
remained out of service for a considerable period, but
thereafter, the Government decided to absorb them. There
was interruption in service on account of abolition of posts.
He contended that the Supreme Court held in that
case that such period rendered in the Project which was
closed could not be counted for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
13. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on this
judgement to buttress his argument to the effect that the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Analysis and Reasons:
14. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and
perused the materials on record. The facts, which are not in
11
2026:JHHC:19631
dispute, are that these petitioners were initially appointed
as Para Teachers. The nature of such employment was
contractual. They were appointed as Para Teachers in
between 2002 and 2007. Later on, they faced the selection
process pursuant to Advertisements issued by various
Districts in Jharkhand. After facing such selection process,
these petitioners were appointed and joined as Intermediate
Trained Teachers in the year 2014 to 2016.
15. The petitioners rendered their service for more
than 4 to 9 years in the contractual establishment. All the
petitioners thereafter retired in the year 2020 -2025, which
is reflected in the chart above. All the petitioners have
rendered several years of services in permanent
establishment but they lack a few years/months/days to
complete 10 years.
16. It is also not in dispute that 50% posts of
Intermediate Trained Teachers were earmarked/reserved
for Para Teachers who have rendered at least two years of
uninterrupted service as contractual teachers. Petitioners
were found fit under such criteria which is evident from
experience certificate. After the petitioners were relieved,
they were permitted to join in the regular establishment.
This itself shows that the petitioners were not only
found suitable for employment in permanent
establishment, but their service rendered as Para Teachers
have also been considered as a criteria for such
appointment.
17. Once a criteria was fixed that Para Teachers who
have rendered at least two years of service are eligible for
appointment and the same was followed by regular
employment; the petitioners are very much entitled for
12
2026:JHHC:19631
counting of such period rendered as contractual
employment for the purpose of pension.
18. The stand of the State is nothing but approbate
and reprobate. Once the State has fixed criteria that you
must have rendered two years regular service as Para
Teachers for such appointment, the State is duty bound to
obey the simple principle that the period rendered as Para
Teachers are required to be counted at least for the purpose
of pensionary benefits. The State, therefore, cannot be
permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.
19. Moreover, the case of the petitioners stands at
better footing than those cases referred hereinabove. From
the factual matrix it is evident that it is better than a case
of normal regularization. In fact, the petitioners were given
a chance to prove their merit and to face the selection
process. The only condition imposed was that they must
have rendered at least two years continuous service as Para
Teachers. All the petitioners proved their merit by facing
selection process and after they were declared successful,
they were taken into regular establishment. The fact,
therefore, remains that the services of the petitioners were
regularized but before such regularization, the petitioners
had to face the selection process.
20. Ousting the petitioners from the purview of
pensionary benefits would be too harsh, in the facts of this
case. Grant of pension to government servant in lieu of
service rendered by him is to tide over vagaries and
vicissitudes associated with old age, and is often an
important consideration for seeking government
employment. It is well settled that grant of pension is not a
bounty. A right accrued to the government servant cannot
be taken away on their superannuation only because they
13
2026:JHHC:19631
lack a few years/months/days to complete ten years of
qualifying service. Pension scheme is floated by the State
Government which form part of beneficial legislation and
the same has to be interpreted widely.
21. It is necessary to underscore that the State
Government is a model employer and ought to uphold
principles of fairness and clarity. When the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has already held that contractual
service rendered has to be counted for the purpose of
pensionary benefits, if a person retires as Government
Servant, this Court is bound to follow such binding
precedents. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioners
are entitled for counting of their services rendered as
contractual employee.
22. The State has relied upon the judgement in the
case of Parmeshwar Nanda (supra). This judgement is
rendered in the facts of that case, inasmuch as, such
persons were working in a Project, named Adult Education
and Non-Formal Education Project which was later on
closed. After several years of closure of this Project, they
were appointed on different posts in the State of
Jharkhand, that too, in different departments.
The writ petitioners of that case challenged
Clauses 11 and 12 of their appointment letters.
23. Further, Rule 103 of Jharkhand Pension Rule was
placed to submit that the interruption in service of an
employee entails forfeiture of his past service. The
petitioners of that case were claiming seniority and pay
protection also which they rendered under the Project,
which was closed. The Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, held
that since the appellants of that case were absorbed as
fresh appointees without any protection and seniority, as a
14
2026:JHHC:19631
consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their
past service rendered under a Project.
That was a case where there was interruption in
service under the project because of the closure.
24. The facts of the present case are that the
petitioners rendered uninterrupted service as contractual
employees, which was followed by regular employment after
facing selection process. The merit of these petitioners was
tested by the respondent-State and thereafter these
petitioners were taken into regular establishment. This is a
case where all the petitioners were rendering their
contractual services in the same department i.e. School
Education & Literacy Department, State of Jharkhand and
they were taken in the same department in the regular
establishment after facing the selection process.
25. Thus, the facts of the case of (supra) and the
present one are quite different. The judgement relied upon
by learned counsel for the respondent-State therefore, is
not applicable to the facts of this case.
26. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-
State has also placed reliance on judgment in the case of
Mohammad Rasid Vs. State of Jharkhand, W.P (s)
No.602 of 2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court relates to regularization. The petitioners filed a writ
petition before this Court to regularize the service on the
post of Accountant-cum-Computer Operators/Cook. They
made out a case that they have rendered 10 years of service
in Kasturba Gandhi Residential School at Sahibganj and
hence their services be regularized. This Court considered
such aspect of the matter and held that their services could
not be regularized on the ground that they were working on
contractual basis.
15
2026:JHHC:19631
27. The other judgment relied upon by learned
Counsel for the State is Sachin Kumar Vs. State of
Jharkhand, W.P. (s) No.3369 of 2019. In this case the
petitioners, claimed payment of regular pay scale along
with dearness allowance as revised from time to time on the
ground that they rendered same and similar service as
Government employees. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that they
are not entitled for regular pay scales for the period they
were working as Para Teachers.
28. These judgments are totally misplaced for the
simple reason that the petitioners are not claiming
regularization.
29. In fact, the petitioners of the instant case have
already been regularized after facing rigorous selection
process and they were taken into regular establishment till
the date of their reaching the age of 60 years. After
rendering for a period ranging from more than 5 to 9 years
of services all the petitioners were allowed to superannuate.
These petitioners are merely claiming counting of their past
services; whereas these two judgments relate to
regularization of their services.
30. Learned Senior Counsel has rightly relied upon
Prem Singh (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has placed
reliance upon Utter Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rule, 1961.
Rule- 3(8) and 361 thereof are reproduced in paragraph 8
of the said judgment. Regulation 361 of Utter Pradesh Civil
Services Regulation has also been reproduced in paragraph
no.9 of the judgment. This Regulation 361 is exactly pari-
materia with Rule-58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, as per
16
2026:JHHC:19631
which the service of an Officer does not qualify for pension
unless it confirms the following three conditions:-
First — The Service must be under Government.
Second — The employment must be substantive and
permanent.
Third — The service must be paid by Government.
31. It is not in dispute that while the petitioners were
permitted to retire from service, they were government
servant and the employment was substantive and
permanent. Relying upon such provision, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held in the case of Prem Singh (supra) that the
period rendered in work-charged establishment are
required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary
benefits. Paragraphs-33, 34 and 36 are reproduced in
extenso: –
“33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such
service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of
temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and
proper. We find that once regularisation had been made on vacant
posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on
temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it
was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary
and thereafter in the pay scale of workcharged establishment the
efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly
discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the
Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service
particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is
sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and
permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the
service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before
regularization. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has
been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust,
impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of
the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the
same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it
has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The
classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and
when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such
service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service
on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that
workcharged service should have preceded by temporary capacity17
2026:JHHC:19631is discriminatory and irrational and creates classification. an
impermissible
34.As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make
aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non-
discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8)
and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the
capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund
employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted
towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded
by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable
establishment.
36. There are some of the employees who have not been
regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or
more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have
worked in the workcharged establishment, not against any
particular project, their services ought to have been regularized
under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of
this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. This Court in the said
decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered
for more than ten years without the cover of the Court’s order, as
one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees,
In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten
years or more should have been regularised. It would not be
proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as
others have been regularised, we direct that their services be
treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall
not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had
they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if
they have retired from the regular establishment and the services
rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-
charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for
purpose of pension.”
32. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Prem Singh (supra) has been followed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023. The
Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the order of
the learned Single Judge held that the period rendered as
temporary or contractual is to be counted for the purpose
of pensionary benefits. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are relevant:-
“4. The question of law involved is not any more res-integra and it
has been settled in various judgments by the Supreme Court
including one in the case of Prem Singh versus State of Utter18
2026:JHHC:19631Pradesh and Others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516, wherein the
Supreme Court has held that the imposition of rider that such
service, ie., service in the workcharged establishment, to be
counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or
temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. The
Supreme Court has further held that on vacant posts, though the
employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis,
considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular
appointment, it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the
pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was
permitted to be crossed. The Supreme Court further held that it
would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider
contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count
such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such
service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between
temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason
not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been
rendered before regularization. In the opinion of the Supreme Court
impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8) of the
Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court
held that such classification is highly unjust, impermissible and
irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying
service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all
the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be
counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot
be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are
themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be
highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy
classification. The rider put on that workcharged service should
have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and
irrational and creates classification. an impermissible
5. In this case, the State of Jharkhand has not brought out any such
classification. In fact, there is no rule or classification contrary to
counting the period of service rendered in the work-charged
establishment as a qualifying service for calculating the retirement
benefits to an employee. We are of the opinion that the appellant is
entitled to retirement benefits, viz. General Provident Fund, Leave
Encashment, Gratuitu and Pension, as admissible on the basis of
the date of initial appointment in the work-charged establishment,
i.e. 01.12.1981.
6. This Letters Patent is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 21.12.2022
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(s) No.5223 of 2022 is set
aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. Mandamus is issued to the
respondents to recalculate the retirement benefits of the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this
order along with simple interest at the rate of 6% from the date of
his retirement till the date of actual payment. Let this order be
communicated. Appellant-petitioner will file requisites before the
Registry within 7 (seven) days.”
33. The Division Bench of this Court not only set aside
the order of the Single Judge by issuing a writ of
mandamus to count such service for the purpose of
19
2026:JHHC:19631
pension but also directed to pay simple interest @6% on the
pensionary benefits. This judgment of the Division Bench of
this court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court,
however, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
was affirmed by dismissing the SLP (c) Diary No.37107 of
2023 on 14.05.2024.
34. There are two recent judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India which dealt with similar issue of
contractual/temporary employment followed by regular
employment. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and
Another Vs. Sheela Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held
as follows in paragraphs no.9, 10 and 11:-
“9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation,
inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that
contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension
Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its
opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the
pension rules ‘Save as otherwise provide in these rules’. If the
opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context,
any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would
render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was
engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where
the employees working on contract basis were reqularized at a
later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past
service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.
10. So far as the other arguments with respect to the voluntariness
when the employees enters into contractual services is concerned,
this Court is unpersuaded by the submission because those terms
where applicable as long as the employees remained on contract.
However, his or her status ceased upon regularization.
11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that
there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions
are issued:-
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and
manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned
(who had been regularized after spells of contractual
employment) regardless of the dates on which they were
engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a
time frame, of within eight weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in the
notice, the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant
options should be notified about the amounts they would have
to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required,
clearly.
20
2026:JHHC:19631
(iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight
weeks from the last date of receiving options.
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire
process should be completed within four months and all orders
fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be
issued.”
35. The judgment of Sheela Devi (supra) has been
followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D.
Jayaprakash Vs. Union of India (supra). While referring to
Rule-17 of the relevant Rule, it was held that employment
rendered as contractual employees are required to be
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Paragraphs-8 and 9 are profitable to quote:-
“8. This rule fell for consideration and interpretation in Sheela Devi
(supra), where this Court held that although Rule 2(g) of the
Pension Rules excludes contractual employees from their
application. Rule 17 applies once such contractual employee is
regularised on a later date. The effect is that upon regularisation,
the Pension Rules become applicable and Rule 17 requires that
past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account
for calculating pension in this light, and considering that Rule 17
requires the regularised employee to exercise and option to
either retain the Government’s contribution to Contributory
Provident Fund, or to refund such amount or forgo the same if they
have not been paid in lieu of counting the service period for which
such benefits may have been payable, this Court in Sheela Devi
(supra) issued the following directions:-
In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that
there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions
are issued:-
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and
manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who
had been regularized after spells of contractual employment)
regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to
the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight
weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in the notice,
the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant options
should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in
case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly.
(iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight
weeks from the last date of receiving options.
21
2026:JHHC:19631
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire
process should be completed within four months and all orders
fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be
issued.”
In the light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as
well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual
service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularisation in
2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary
benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17 in
line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted
hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take
immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the
appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the
Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants
would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the
Rules.”
36. Coming to the facts of the case, this Court holds
that undisputedly the petitioners were rendering their
services as contractual employees on the post of Para
Teachers. They were having much more than two years of
uninterrupted service as contractual employees. This was
followed by appointment of these petitioners after facing
selection process in a regular establishment of the same
department.
37. Hence, considering the binding precedents of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Singh
(supra); Sheela Devi (supra); and S.D. Jayaprakash (supra),
this Court holds that the period rendered in contractual
establishment of the petitioners are required to be counted
for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Conclusion:
38. In the light of what has been held above, all the
petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits after
counting their past services rendered in
contractual/temporary establishment. This court issues a
writ of mandamus upon the respondents to count the
services of the writ petitioners with effect from the date of
22
2026:JHHC:19631
joining as para teachers for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
39. The respondents are further directed to calculate
all the post-retirement benefits of the petitioners and pay
the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of this order along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of their retirements till the date of actual payment.
40. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands
allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed.
(Deepak Roshan, J)
03.07.2026
Amardeep/
NAFR
Uploaded on
06.07.2026
23
