PARMESHWAR PRASAD vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:18954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5399 of 2022
….…..
1. Parmeshwar Prasad, aged about 78 years, son of
Late Janki Prasad, resident of Flat No.C-2, Maha Maya
Apartment, Morabadi, P.O. Bariyatu, P.S. Bariyatu,
District Ranchi.
2. Kawaldhari Prasad Singh, aged about 78 years, son
of Late Kalika Prasad Singh, resident of House No.18B,
Datta Villa road (Antu Chowk), New Morabadi, P.O.
Ranchi University, P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi.
3. Satish Chandra Roy, aged about 77 years, son of
Late Dani Prasad Roy, resident of Roy Bhawan, Veena
Niwash, B.N. Jha road, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar,
District Deoghar.
4. Braj Kishor Prasad, aged about 76 years, son of
Late Lachho Mahto, resident of East Ashok Nagar, Road
No.14B, Gali No.4 East, House No.167, P.O. Lohia Nagar,
P.S. Kankar Bagh, District Patna.
5. Krishna Nandan Prasad, aged about 77 years, son
of Late Rameshwar Prasad, resident of Saraswati Bihar,
Professor Colony, Bajrangpuri, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S.
Alamganj, District Patna.
6. Mathura Prasad Singh aged of about 76years, son
of Late Chhotu Mahto, years, son resident of Mohalla
Khandak Par, P.O. Bihar Sharif, P.S Bihar Sharif, District
Nalanda (Bihar).
7. Jai Krishna Ojha aged about 76 years, son of Late
nand Kumar Ojha, resident of Keshav Nagar (Pirra), P.O.
and P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi.
8. Madan Mohan years, son Chaudhary aged about
76 of of late Trilok Nath Chaudhary, resident Flat
No.H/1, Ashish Plaza Phase-2, Kali Mandir Road,
Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur,
District Ranchi.
9. Gopal Kumar Paul aged about 76 years, son of Late
Ratan Kumar, resident of 2D, Kuco Apartment, Doranda,
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
10. Rana Pratap Singh aged about 76 years, son of
Late Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Plot No.14,
Vikash Vatika, P.O. Buty, Shivaji Nagar, Dumerdaga,
Buty, P.O. & P.S. Khelgawn, District Ranchi.
1
2026:JHHC:18954
11. Kamla Kant Jha aged about 80 years, son of Late
Baleshwar Jha, resident of D-24, Vatika Green City,
Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum.
12. Shanti Das, w/o Kusheshwar Lal Das, resident of
Enem Villa, Namkum Road, Kusai, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi.
13. Amal Kumar Sinha aged about 76 years, son of
Late Tarkeshwar Saran, resident Huse No.963 Gandhi
School Road, Jhumri Telaiya, of P.O. and P.S. Jhumri
Telaiya, District Koderma. ..… Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at H.E.C. Admin, Dhurwa,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
(JUVNL), Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand
Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL), Engineering Building,
H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
6. Director Personnel, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
7. Director Account, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited, Engineering Building, H.E.C.. Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
8. General Manager, Personnel-cum-General
Administration, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited,
Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
9. Personnel Officer, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited, Engineering Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
H.E.C., Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
10. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric
Supply Division, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District
2
2026:JHHC:18954
Deoghar. ..... Respondent(s)
….…..
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Sr. Adv
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv
Mr. Priya Sahay, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)I
Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, A.C. to S.C.
(L&C)I
C.A.V. ON: 07/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners for the following reliefs:-
( i ) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s),
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order
dated 18.02.2019 issued vide office of order no.225 and
communicated to one of the petitioners on 24.12.2020 issued vide
letter no.2271 under the signature of Deputy General Manager
(Human Resources), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
Dhurwa, Ranchi (as contained in Annexure- 12 to this writ
application) by which petitioners representation and various other
persons were rejected.
(ii)For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s),
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon
respondents to act in Delhi terms of the order of Principal Delhi
Bench of Administrative Tribunal, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble
Kerala High Court, Hon'ble Punjab and Huryana High Court,
Hon'ble Supreme court and the Central Government subsequent
notifications dated 6th April 2016 and 13th June 2016 and also
direct the respondents to re-fix the pension and make the payment
with arrears w.e.f. 1.1.2006 without reducing the pension due to
Pro-rata.
(iii)For issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s),
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus for direction upon
the respondents to re-fix/revise the pension of the petitioners (pre
2006 retired) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in pursuance of the
recommendation of the pay revision and pay further direction
revise the pension of the petitioners 01.01.2006 instead of
24.09.2012.
(iv)For any other appropriate relief (s) to which the petitioners may
be found entitled in law and equity.
3. The brief facts of the instant writ application are that
3
2026:JHHC:18954
the petitioners were appointed under the respondents on the
executive cadre, and have retired before 01.01.2006 after
rendering qualifying service ranging between 20 and 33 years.
4. The case of the Petitioners is that in view of the
th
recommendations of the 6 Central Pay Commission, the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions,
Government of India, through its Office Memorandum (O.M.)
dated 06.04.2016, provided for the revision of pension of pre-
2006 pensioners, wherein it was stated that the pension of
government employees retiring on or after 01.01.2006, having
rendered less than 33 years of service at the time of retirement,
will stand delinked from the requirement of 33 years of
qualifying service and would not be less than 50% of the
minimum pay in the pay band and corresponding grade pay,
without any pro-rata reduction.
However, the Board of Directors, Jharkhand State
th
Electricity Board, conducted its 37 meeting and it made
certain resolutions vide General Order No. 225 dated
18.02.2019, to revise the pension of pre-2006 pensioners w.e.f.
01.01.2006 in consonance with O.M. dated 01.09.2008 and its
subsequent amendments. However, the revised pension
structure was approved w.e.f. 24.09.2012, provided that there
would be no change in the pension/family pension between
01.01.2006 and 23.09.2012, and no arrears would be paid for
4
2026:JHHC:18954
the said period.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was earlier brought
before this Court by the Petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(S) No. 898 of
2020 , claiming the same reliefs, wherein a direction was issued
on 06.07.2020 to the competent authority for consideration of
the representations made by the pensioners. Pursuant thereto,
the Petitioner No. 2 and other similarly situated pensioners
submitted their representations on 20.07.2020, but their
grievances were not redressed, resulting in contempt
proceedings.
6. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings,
the JUVNL communicated the provisions of the General Order
No. 225 dated 18.02.2019 to one of the Petitioners vide Letter
No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, thereby rejecting the
representations of the petitioners and other similarly situated
pensioners, and decided not to revise their pension w.e.f.
01.01.2006. Consequently, the contempt case was disposed of
vide order dated 24.09.2021, with liberty to challenge any
adverse decision taken by the concerned authorities regarding
the representations. Hence, this writ application.
7. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the
th
petitioners that when the 6 Pay Revision was accepted by the
State Government on the recommendation of the Finance
Department vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, it
5
2026:JHHC:18954
clearly provided that the pension benefit given to the State
Government employees would be revised at par with the Central
Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
He also submitted that in light of the Resolution No.
660 dated 28.02.2009, the finally revised pension of the pre-
2006 pensioners in terms of the O.M. dated 06.04.2016 is
deemed to have been accepted by the State Government, and
accordingly, the pre-2006 pensioners are entitled to get the
revision of pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2006.
8. It was also submitted that the various orders and
judicial pronouncements of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi;
CAT, Ernakulam Bench; Kerala High Court; and Hon’ble
Supreme Court have been implemented by the Central
Government vide notification dated 30.07.2015, whereby the
pensions of pre-2006 pensioners have been revised w.e.f.
01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012, in accordance with O.M.
dated 28.01.2013.
9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the pension of the State Government employees is decided
vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, and Resolution No.
858 dated 27.03.2015, whereby the differential amount is
payable from 24.09.2012, and the arrears for the period
01.01.2006 to 23.09.2012 are payable according to the old
provisions, as per the advice from the Finance Department,
6
2026:JHHC:18954
Government of Jharkhand; and the General Order No. 225
dated 18.02.2019 is in consonance with the said Resolutions.
He further submitted that the O.M. dated 06.04.2016
issued by the Government of India has not been adopted by the
State Government yet; hence, the said guidelines have not been
implemented in JUVNL and its subsidiary companies.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires
that the petitioners were the employees working under the
respondents and after rendering their services ranging between
20 and 33 years, they retired before 01.01.2006.
It further appears that the Department of Personnel,
Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India,
th
implemented the 6 Pay Revision Commission Report for the
pensioners retired prior to 2006 vide Office Memorandum dated
01.09.2008. Pursuant thereto, the State Government of
th
Jharkhand adopted the 6 Central Pay Commission w.e.f.
01.01.2006 vide Resolution No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, and
agreed in principle to grant the central pay scale and other
allowances with central service conditions to its employees.
11. Thereafter, the Office Memorandum dated
01.09.2008 was amended vide Office Memorandum dated
28.01.2013, stating that in cases where the pre-2006
pensioners have not rendered minimum qualifying service for
7
2026:JHHC:18954
full pension, there will be a pro-rata reduction in their pension,
as per Rule 49 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, which
provided that it must not be less than Rs. 3,500/- per month.
12. It further appears that the State Government vide
Resolution No. 858 dated 27.03.2015 adopted the Office
Memorandum dated 28.01.2013, stating that the differential
amount in the pension will be payable from 24.09.2012, and
the payment of arrears between 01.01.2006 and 23.09.2012
will be made according to the old provisions.
13. Thereafter, the pre-2006 pensioners demanded
revision of their pension in consonance with Office
Memorandum dated 28.01.2013 and the Resolution dated
27.03.2015.
At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the matter
related to not granting the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 travelled
up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 36148 of
2013 , and the judgment dated 17.03.2015 went in favour of
the retired employees by directing the cut-off date as arbitrary
and revising their pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
14. Subsequently, in compliance to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Central Government vide Office
Memorandum dated 30.07.2015 notified that all the pre-2006
pensioners’ pension shall be granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead
of 24.09.2012, along with the payment of arrears in consonance
8
2026:JHHC:18954
with the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013.
Thereafter, a similar decision was taken by the
Central Government vide Office Memorandum dated
06.04.2016, providing for the revision of pension of pre-2006
pensioners, and the provision of delinking of revised pension
from qualifying service of 33 years was also notified. Later, the
Central Government issued an Office Memorandum dated
13.06.2016, wherein it was provided that the pre-2006
pensioners who were drawing a monthly pension after
completing 10 years of qualifying service are eligible for the
benefit in terms of Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 and
Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016.
15. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of JUVNL
issued the General Order No. 225 dated 18.02.2019 pursuant
th
to its 37 meeting, and approved the revision of pension of the
pre-2006 pensioners, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by stepping up the
pension to 50%, and family pension to 30% of the sum of
minimum pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding
to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner has
retired, in consonance with the Office Memorandum dated
01.09.2008 and its subsequent amendments.
It was also decided that in cases where the pensioner
has served for less than the minimum required period of
service, the pension will continue to be reduced on a pro-rata
9
2026:JHHC:18954
basis, provided that the reduced pension must not fall below
the sum of ₹ 3,500 per month. However, these would take effect
from the date of approval by the Government, i.e., 24.09.2012,
and no arrear is to be paid for the period from 01.01.2006 to
23.09.2012.
16. The grievance of the petitioners arises out of the fact
that, pursuant to the representation filed by the Petitioner No. 2
and other similarly situated pensioners, as they were so
directed in W.P.(S) No. 898 of 2020 , the JUVNL passed an order
rejecting the representation vide Letter No. 2271 dated
24.12.2020 in consonance with General Order No. 225 dated
18.02.2019, thereby deciding not to revise the pension w.e.f.
01.01.2006.
However, on perusal of the counter affidavit dated
24.07.2024, the Court finds the sole reason for denial of the
benefit from 01.01.2006 is the stand of the respondents that
the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 has not been
formally adopted by the State Government and that Resolution
No. 660 dated 28.02.2009 and Resolution No. 858 dated
27.03.2015 restrict payment of the differential amount only
from 24.09.2012.
17. However, once the principle of delinking pension from
the requirement of 33 years of service has been accepted and
implemented by the respondents themselves, there appears no
10
2026:JHHC:18954
justifiable reason to deny the consequential benefit from
01.01.2006, particularly when the very issue has already been
settled in favour of similarly situated pensioners by the Hon’ble
Apex Court and implemented by the Central Government
initially through the order dated 30.07.2015, and later through
the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016.
18. In view of the fact that vide Resolution No. 660 dated
28.02.2009 issued by the State Government on the
recommendation of the Finance Department, the State
Government has adopted the revision of the scale of pay as
th
recommended by the 6 Central Pay Commission w.e.f.
01.01.2006, and the State Government has agreed in principle
to grant the central pay scale and other allowances with the
central service condition of its employees; the respondents
cannot deny the claim of the petitioners in the garb of the non-
adoption of the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, as the
same is deemed to have amended the decision of the State
Government regarding revision of pension of the retirees pre-
2006 pensioners, and accordingly, they are entitled to get the
revision of pay-scale with effect from 01.01.2006.
As stated hereinabove, the issue related to not
granting the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 travelled up to the
Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 36148 of 2013 , which was
decided in favour of the retired employees by directing the cut-
11
2026:JHHC:18954
off date as arbitrary and revising their pension w.e.f.
01.01.2006 and only in compliance with the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Central Government vide Office
Memorandum dated 30.07.2015 notified that all the i.e. pre-
2006 pensioners’ pension shall be granted w.e.f. 01.01.2006
instead of 24.09.2012, along with the payment of arrears in
consonance with the Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013.
Thus, the issue involved in the instant case is already
decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and abided accordingly by
the Central Government; thus, the respondents cannot deny
the claim of the petitioners in the garb of the non-adoption of
the Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016.
19. This Court further finds that the impugned order
contained in Letter No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, proceeds on a
technical ground and fails to take into consideration the
subsequent developments and the relevant judicial
pronouncements recognizing the entitlement of pre-2006
pensioners having rendered the minimum qualifying service of
20 years.
Consequently, the said order cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Letter
No. 2271 dated 24.12.2020, as well as General Order No. 225
dated 18.02.2019, to the extent they deny revision of pension to
12
2026:JHHC:18954
the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2006, are hereby,
quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to revise the
pension/family pension of the petitioners by extending the
benefit of delinking of qualifying service from 33 years and
grant consequential arrears with effect from 01.01.2006, within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.
21. Consequently, the writ petition stand allowed.
Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stand closed. No cost.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:29/06/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
01.07.2026
13