Court In Whose Limits Retired Employee Draws Pension Has Jurisdiction To Hear Plea For Dues, Employer's Convenience Not Relevant: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Monday reiterated that the convenience of the retired employee must be given preference in petitions filed for claiming terminal benefits admittedly due to them. The aforesaid petitions can be moved before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where he belongs to and was receiving pension at. 

Justice Anu Sivaraman observed,

To now require the petitioners who are service pensioners to approach the High Courts at Delhi and Bombay for receiving amounts which are admittedly due to them, according to me, is a complete misconception and would amount to denial of the petitioners' valuable rights.

The petitioners are retired employees of HIL (India) Limited, a company having its headquarters in New Delhi. The Petitioners contended that they have been relieved from the services of the company (one from Delhi and another from Bombay) and that they are drawing their pension in Kerala. The Writ Petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to pay the leave encashment or half-pay sick leave encashment amount to the petitioners which were due to them at the time of retirement.  

The Standing Counsel for respondents raised the preliminary objection that the Writ Petition was not maintainable on account of the fact that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. 

The Court however relied on the Apex Court decision in Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra v. Union of India, where it was held that for a retired employee, convenience is to prosecute his case at the place where he belongs to and was receiving pension at and it is not the convenience of the company which has to be taken into account, but the convenience of the pensioner who otherwise would have to be driven to other jurisdictions to get amounts which are admittedly due to him.

Thereby, the Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the petitioners are retired employees of the 1st respondent who draw their pensionary benefits within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and since the earned leave encashment amount represents a part of the terminal benefits that the petitioner would be entitled to, therefore the writ petition is maintainable before the Court.

It distinguished their case from Mangala v. Union of India & Ors. where the High Court had held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. It said,

"I notice that the same was specifically a case where the employee was in service and was employed out of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but was permitted to work from home during the period when the writ petition was filed...However, in the instance case, in view of the fact that what is being claimed is admittedly a terminal benefit which has not been released even long after retirement, the said decision would have no application to the facts of this case."

The Court also pointed out that it is not in dispute that there is an undue delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the amounts of earned leave encashment due to the petitioners

Therefore, Court further observed that the respondents are duty bound to see that the amount admittedly due to the petitioners are released to them within 6 months. 

Appropriate steps shall be taken to see that the entire amounts are released to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amounts due will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the Court further added. 

Case Title: M. S. Anil and Anr. v. M/S Hil (India) Ltd and Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 636

Click Here To Read/Download The Order