Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

“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