Last Updated on May 28, 2024 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will discuss about a writ petition that was filed by a school teacher for payment of pension.
Applicant submitted that if the State had fixed the grade pay in the year 2006 wrongly and some excess payment was paid to the petitioner then the same could not have been recovered after her retirement in view of the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2015 (4) SCC 334 and rather the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
The action of the respondents is totally contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). There is no allegation of any fraud or mis-representation on the part of the petitioner and rather the respondent-State itself granted the grade pay to the petitioner on their own. Even otherwise also, since the petitioner falls in Category-III and has already retired, no such recovery can be effected from the petitioner.
Pension and pensionary benefits are not the bounty of the State and rather it is a Constitutional Right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Way back in the year 1971, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad versus State of Bihar and others 1971(2) SCC 330 dealt with this issue and observed that the State cannot withhold the pension and pensionary benefits without the authority of law even though at that point of time the Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under Part-III of the Constitution of India and thereafter with the 44th amendment of the Constitution of India it became a Constitutional Right.
The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by a number of judgments and thereafter in State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another 2013(12) SCC 210, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that pension and pensionary benefits are not the bounty of the State and thus cannot be either withheld or forfeited without authority of law.
The Division Bench of this Court has already considered as to whether the weak financial position can be taken as a ground to decline the pensionary benefits to the retired employees. In case titled as “Ram Karan Vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another”, 2005(3) PLR 580, wherein it has been held that keeping in view the fact that the State is a welfare State and the retired employees have no other source of income to lead a dignified life, the retiral benefits cannot be declined or withheld on account of financial difficulty.
Also Read- Pensioner’s undertaking for recovery doesn’t give bank absolute right –High Court Chandigarh
Be that as it may, the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 has held that employee is entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after the retirement in case there is no impediment. The reasonable time fixed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra) is two months after the retirement. In case of the failure of the authority to release the pensionary benefits, employee has been held entitled for interest so as to compensate the employee for the delay.
Also, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 has held that where an amount belonging to an employee has been retained and used by the department, employee will be entitled for interest.
BALJINDER KAUR—Petitioner versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS—Respondents CWP No. 24430 of 2017 January 25, 2021 Constitution of India, 1950–Arts. 226 and 227—Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (Rules of 2006)—Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 2 (as applicable to state of Haryana)—Family Pension Rules, 1964—Grant of arrears of monthly financial assistance and family pension—Held, the order denying pension to the petitioner on account of her conviction in a murder case is unrelated to the death of her husband—Order is not sustainable and the petitioner is allowed the arrears of family pension along with interest—Petition allowed.
Anita Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors
9 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
CWP No. 13433 of 2016 (O&M)Date of Decision: 09.01.2018Petitioner- Anita SharmaRespondents- State of Punjab and others Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by Director of Public Instructions (SE) and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by Education Tribunal, Punjab. Timeline of Events:1. On 01.09.1984, petitioner was appointed as Math Mistress in a Privately Managed recognized aided school.2. Government of Punjab vide Notification dated 10.02.1992 framed a scheme called as ‘Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992’.3. The petitioner filled up option form dated 28.05.1992 for the grant of pension wherein tick marked option at Sr.No. 02 i.e. “I opt to continue under the existing contributory provident fund benefits”.4. The aforesaid scheme of 1992 was repealed vide notification dated 12.09.2003 and revived vide Notification dated 01.08.2012.5. As per Regulation 3 of 2012 scheme, it is applicable to employees of Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools who had opted for Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992.6. an employee who had opted for Retirement Benefit Scheme of 1992 is eligible to scheme of 2012 and petitioner wishes to avail the pension scheme of 2012 even though she had opted contributory provident fund scheme and not pension scheme 1992.7. The petitioner made representations and thereafter filed CWP No. 23068 of 2015 and this court vide order dated 30.10.2015 directed the authorities to decide representations of the petitioner who vide order dated 24.02.2016 rejected claim of the petitioner.
ALSO READ- PENSION FOR CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES LAW IN INDIA
Findings of the Court:· Present petition bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed.· The main contention of petitioner is that she by mistake opted for CPF Scheme of 1992 and pension is right, not bounty so she should be allowed to opt for pension scheme of 2012.· The petitioner is a well qualified teacher and she had consciously opted for CPF benefit and for the said purpose, she had filed an undertaking dated 28.05.1992.· She cannot claim at this stage that she by mistake opted for CPF benefit and secondly scheme of 2012 specifically debars her so there is no ground to interfere and set aside impugned orders.· Petitioner has not challenged any regulation of Scheme of 2012 so this court cannot go beyond the scheme which is basis of claim of the petitioner. Order: This court does not find any reason to interfere and accordingly petition is dismissed.No orders are required to be passed in the miscellaneous application(s), pending if any.
ALSO READ- PAY INTEREST ON DELAY IN PENSIONARY BENEFITS
This post was written by Rashika Garg
Rest for pension related issues in one can contact service lawyer advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali for CAT, AFT, High Court Chandigarh Matters.
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
