The Allahabad High Court said that grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, blessing or grace of the employer, but a right of the employees and as such cannot be denied without any proper justification.
A Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Chhaya.
In the petition a prayer has been made to direct the respondent No 2/Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar to make payment of retiral benefits like A.C.P, Insurance, Leave Encashment and arrears of retiral pension forthwith but nothing has been stated in the entire affidavit that whether the payment of Leave Encashment has been made to the petitioner or not.
Insofar as the Insurance amount is concerned, it is stated in the chart appended along with the affidavit that papers for payment of Insurance have been sent by the office of respondent No 2 to Life Insurance Corporation Lucknow on 22.3.2024.
The Court noted that the husband of the petitioner while working on the post of Sweeper in the office of respondent No 2 died on 26.09.2016 and as per provisions of the Insurance Scheme, legal heirs of deceased employee became entitled for payment of insurance money forthwith after the death of employee but from perusal of the affidavit filed on April 02, it is clear that papers regarding payment of Insurance money has been sent first time on 22.03.2024, i.e, lapse of more than seven years, to the Insurance Company and no explanation in this regard has been mentioned in the affidavit.
The Court said that,
Time and again it was held by the Supreme Court that grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, blessing or grace of the employer, but a right of the employees and as such cannot be denied without any proper justification. The Supreme Court in the case of R Sundaram Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee & Ors (Special Leave Petition (Civil) decided on 17.03.2023 held that grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, blessing or grace of the employer, but a right of the employees and as such cannot be denied without any proper justification.
Public employee holding a civil post or office under the State has a legitimate right to earn his pension at the evening of his life after retirement, be it on superannuation or voluntary retirement. It is not a bounty of the State. Equally too of gratuity, a statutory right, earned by him. Article 41 of the Constitution accords the right to assistance in cases of old age or sickness or disablement.
The Court referred the case of D.S Nakara vs Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but also by the broader significance in that it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice by providing economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to ageing process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when one had given his best in the hey-day of life to his employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. Therefore, it is a sort of stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus pension is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.
It is further stated in the aforesaid judgment (D.S Nakara, Supra) that pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a fillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare State because by pension the socialist goal of security from cradle to grave is assured at least when it is mostly needed and least available, namely in the fall of life. Therefore, when a Government employee is sought to be deprived of his pensionary right which he had earned while rendering services under the State, such a deprivation must be in accordance with law.
“In this view of the matter and as prayed by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No 2, time till next Tuesday, i.e, on 09.04.2024 is granted to file a fresh affidavit.
In the aforesaid affidavit, the respondent No 2 is directed to provide information that how many employees have been superannuated till December, 2023 whose post retiral benefits have not been granted and for such a relief, how many writ petitions are pending before the Court.
On the said date, the respondent No 2 will also provide the information that what action has been taken for grant of post retiral benefits to the petitioner in the connected matters.
Personal appearance of respondent No 2 is hereby exempted subject to condition that he will remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing, i.e, on 09.04.2024”, the order reads.