Supreme Court Rebukes UP Govt For Not Paying Pension To Retired Peon For 10 Years, Calls For Chief Secretary's Report

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) when it came heavily on the state government, observing that “grave injustice has been done to the petitioner.”

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984. In 2016, he superannuated after nearly thirty-two years of service. His service was pensionable and he repeatedly requested release of his pension, filing several complaints.

In 2018, he filed a writ before the Allahabad High Court and sought payment of retiral benefits. In 2024, the High Court directed the office to trace and place on record the state government's counter affidavit. However, the case was not listed thereafter pursuant to which he filed an application seeking early hearing in October 2025 which was disposed of in April 2026 without fixing any date. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court challenging the 2024 order.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Anita Tripathi submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only the gratuity amount had been paid in 2025, after nine years.

The Uttar Pradesh filed a compliance affidavit in which the Court noted inconsistency as paragraph 11 stated that because the petitioner was absent between 20.07.2009 and 30.11.2010, only provisional pension had been approved, and that he did not respond to requests to submit documents. However, paragraph 12 stated that his salary for that period was paid, which indicates that there was no interruption in service. On this basis, his provisional pension was cancelled and final pension was recommended.

It was also contended that Rs 7,16,295 had been disbursed towards the petitioner's General Provident Fund in 2025. Another compliance affidavit was submitted stating that the petitioner had been given arrears of pension and other benefits amounting to Rs 29,06,663 in 2026, and that he would receive a regular monthly pension of Rs 11,200 along with Dearness Allowance.

Perusing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court expressed its wonder as to how the petitioner has survived for the last eleven years. It observed that although the writ petition was filed in 2018, nothing has happened in the last eight years. It held that the state, as a model employer, had the responsibility to clear the pension papers expeditiously on the petitioner's superannuation, and that this was not done.

“On the contrary, an absolute non-issue was raised about the petitioner being probably absent from 20.07.2009 to 30.11.2010 and a provisional order resulted. Very soon the department realised that there was a mistake and corrected the error,” the bench noted.

The Court expressed its shock to learn from the records that for ten years after superannuation, for no fault of the petitioner, he had not been paid his retiral dues.

“We are not just taken aback but we are totally aghast that this can happen to an employee who was given dedicated service 32 years. It should not be forgotten that the petitioner joined as a peon and superannuated on 31.07.2016 in the same post. This Court has reiterated times without number that pension is neither a bounty or a charity but is a deferred payment for services already rendered. In other words, it means that a portion of the salary payable every month is kept back and it is paid after the employee superannuates.”

“Grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. We are not prepared to leave the matter to rest here. This unfortunate calamity should not befall any other employee,” the bench expressed.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had served for 32 years, that he was 71 years of age and beset with several medical complications. It expressed sorrow that the department “has shown absolutely no concern for the cause of the petitioner and only after our intervention the legitimate dues and arrears have been released.”

The bench, thus, directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to furnish a report on or before 31.12.2026 responding as to why the pension papers were not cleared immediately after the petitioner's superannuation; what led to the delay and who were the officers/employees responsible at different stages. Response is also sought on what action is proposed against those responsible; and how the state proposes to compensate the petitioner for the serious violation of his rights. Directions are also passed to issue necessary orders or Standard Operating Procedures, to ensure that pension papers of employees like the petitioner who are legitimately entitled to their pension are not delayed even by a day.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court, to be placed before the Chief Justice, who was requested to examine if matters pertaining to non-release of pension can be prioritised for early disposal.

The matter will next be heard on 04.01.2027.

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Ms. Anita Tripathi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR; Mr. Anshuman Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv.; Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Sudhanshu Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondents: Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR