Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

“Delay in Pension Entitlement is a Denial of Rights," Says Rajasthan High Court

11 September 2024 9:57 AM

By: sayum


In a crucial ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, addressing multiple writ petitions regarding pension entitlements, ordered the concerned authorities to ensure the immediate disbursement of pensionary benefits to retired employees. The Court underscored that unnecessary administrative delays infringe upon the fundamental rights of retirees, thereby violating their constitutional entitlements. These petitions were filed by retired employees from various departments, such as education and animal husbandry, seeking timely pension benefits that were denied despite repeated requests.

The petitioners, former government employees across different departments including education and animal husbandry, had fulfilled their respective tenures but were subjected to undue delays in receiving their pension benefits. The petitioners filed writ petitions against the State of Rajasthan and respective departments, alleging that despite repeated requests and administrative appeals, they had not been provided with their due pension amounts or other retirement benefits. These cases, such as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12657/2024, involved litigants like Umesh Chandra Pareek and others who sought judicial intervention against the State's failure to comply with their pension claims.

The court took serious note of the inefficiencies in the administrative mechanisms. It observed, "Retirees, having served the government faithfully, are entitled to receive their pension without any delay. Any hindrance in the timely release of pensionary benefits is not only unjust but also an infringement of their rights."

The court highlighted that the right to pension is integral to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity. The prolonged withholding of pension was described as tantamount to denying the petitioners their dignity in old age. "Such delays in disbursing pensions amount to a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21," the bench noted.

The High Court, expressing dissatisfaction with the repeated administrative delays, directed the respective departments to expedite the process. The court stated, "All pensionary arrears must be cleared within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the respondents shall be liable to face further legal consequences."

The court remarked, "Delay in the release of pensionary benefits is nothing short of a denial of justice. The retirees have a rightful claim to these benefits, and any delay in this regard is a violation of their constitutional rights."

The court reiterated the principle that pension is not a bounty but a right earned through years of service. It further clarified that the government is under an obligation to ensure the timely release of these benefits. "Pension is a deferred payment for the service rendered, and any unreasonable delay is an administrative failure that needs rectification," the court asserted. The judgment also referred to previous rulings, reinforcing that pension claims must be settled promptly to avoid undue hardship to retirees.

This judgment sends a clear message that pensionary benefits are a matter of right and must be disbursed without delay. The court’s strong stance on this issue is expected to bring relief to many retirees facing similar struggles across Rajasthan. The ruling may lead to a significant overhaul in how pension matters are handled, ensuring greater accountability and efficiency within the administrative framework.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024

Umesh Chandra Pareek vs. State of Rajasthan

Similar News