Pension Falls Within Constitutional Right To Property, Non-Availability Of Document Cannot Be Grounds For Denial: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that "non-availability of some documents cannot become the ground" for depriving an employee of his pension.Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined that "merely because of the inter departmental communication and non-availability of some documents cannot become a ground for depriving of an employee of his pension. Pension is a...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that "non-availability of some documents cannot become the ground" for depriving an employee of his pension.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri opined that "merely because of the inter departmental communication and non-availability of some documents cannot become a ground for depriving of an employee of his pension. Pension is a Constitutional Right of Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No employee can be deprived of his right to property except with the authority of law."
The Court was hearing a plea of a Clerk employed in the office of the Municipal Council Thanesar, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the respondents to release the retiral benefits.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the he was in service and was working in the office of Municipal Council Thanesar and suspended in May 2016 but thereafter his order of suspension was revoked in August 2017 and in the departmental proceedings only an order of warning was passed.
However, after his retirement neither the retiral benefits nor the pension was paid to the petitioner, he added. The grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the release of his pension, the remaining amount of the retiral benefits and interest on the delayed payments.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that during the pendency of the plea, the Municipal Council paid some retiral benefit in 2023 but "there is no justification" given for the delay.
The Court rejected the argument of the Municipal Council that the payment of pension cannot be made because they have asked for various documents and pension papers from their departments where the petitioner worked from the year 2001 to 2007 and in the absence of the same, his pension c could not be processed.
"This Court is of the considered view that merely because of the inter-departmental communication and non-availability of some documents cannot become a ground for depriving of an employee of his pension. Pension is a Constitutional Right of Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India," it said.
The judge referred to the Apex Court's decision in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, [1971], to underscore that, "pension is not a bounty of the State and is rather a valuable right."
It also placed reliance on the State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, [2013], wherein out was held that "It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India."
Justice Puri highlighted that a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Municipal Council and arguments raised by its counsel, made it clear that "the pension of the petitioner has been with-held for no justification at all and he has been deprived of his constitutional as well as statutory rights."
"Therefore, the action of the respondents in with-holding the pension on the ground that some documents were not available with them pertaining to the pension is unsustainable and is rejected," the judge said.
The Court noted that there had been a delay of about 3 years for which there was no justification either in an affidavit or in the submissions made by the respondent in paying the retiral benefit.
The petitioner will be entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid delayed payments. In case there are other retiral benefits also which have not been paid to the petitioner till date, he shall be entitled for the same as well alongwith the arrears and interest of 6% per annum, the bench opined.
With regard to the grant of full salary for the suspension period, is concerned, the Court said that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the Municipal Council in this regard within a period of three months.
In light of the above, the Court directed the employer to release the pension of the petitioner forthwith, grant him arrears of pension as aforesaid, interest on the delayed retiral benefits and also the arrears of any other amount of retiral benefits if not already paid along with the interest at 6% per annum.
While disposing of the plea, the judge said that considering that "not even a single justified reason has come-forth whereby the petitioner has been denied his pension and retiral benefits, the petitioner shall also be entitled for costs which are assessed as Rs.25,000 which shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 145
Mahinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for respondents No.4, 5 and 8.