Right To Retirement Benefits Accrues From Length Of Service, Not Attached To Post: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to retirement benefits flows from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not linked to the post held. It directed the State to pay pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that there was no vacant post against which he could have been appointed, noting...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to retirement benefits flows from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not linked to the post held.
It directed the State to pay pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that there was no vacant post against which he could have been appointed, noting that he had served for almost 30 years.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,
“The accrual of the right to the retirement benefit is by virtue of the length of service and it is not attached to the post; and as such after taking service for almost 30 years, the denial to the retirement benefit, will be in-equitable; and as such this Court has no hesitation, in molding the relief, in order to do substantial justice between the parties, for the grant of retirement benefit, to the Petitioner.”
Appellant, a general category candidate, applied for the post of Junior Clerk, two general category vacancies for which were advertised on 11.07.1997. After clearing the written examination and interview, he was placed at serial no. 2 in the select list issued on 31.07.1997 by the Additional Commissioner (Finance and Revenue), Bareilly Zone, and was issued an appointment letter on 12.09.1997.
His services were terminated on 13.09.2000 after the Chief Accountant reported that he had been appointed against a leave vacancy. Appellant challenged his termination before the writ Court. The State contended that his appointment was never against a substantive vacancy, as one of the two advertised posts had been filled by a compassionate appointment on 25.07.1997 and the other by the candidate at serial no. 1.
Appellant's writ petition was dismissed holding that mere selection does not give the indefeasible right to appointment. The appellant challenged the Single Judge's order dated 31.08.2012 in intra-court appeal.
The Court obsereved that no corrigendum was issued to the advertisement and the State went on to select and appoint the appellant. Referring to Jaggo v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court took note of the exploitation of temporary employees and their arbitrary termination after long years of service, the Court observed,
“There is much similarity, in effect, even when Termination is on the ground of non-existence of the Post; and this practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of insecurity, regardless of the quality and duration of the service.”
The Court held that the appellant, who went through the selection process believing the post to be a sanctioned one, had a legitimate expectation that the State would treat his service as permanent, and could not be left in uncertainty after nearly three decades because of a flaw in the State's own decision. Noting that he was due to retire on 31.08.2026, it held that the question of the post would lose significance after retirement.
Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court directed the authorities to calculate the appellant's retirement benefits, including pension and gratuity, as normally admissible to a Government employee and release them within thirty days from the date of service of a certified copy of the order.
The order of the Single Judge was set aside and the special appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others