MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

No Pension for Retired Rajasthan Dairy Federation Workers: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023, Supreme Court of India has ruled, in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (Dead) by LRs & Ors., that employees of Rajasthan State Dairy Development Corporation (Dairy Federations) who retired from their jobs between 1999 to 2003 are not entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the State government.

The judgement came in response to a civil appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against a common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court declaring the respondents to be entitled to receive pensionary benefits in essence by treating their lien to be continuing with the State Government up to the date of their permanent absorption with the Dairy Federations.

The State of Rajasthan had argued that the employees had ceased to have lien with the State Government after they were permanently absorbed in the Dairy Federations and, therefore, they were not entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the State government.

The respondents were initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department of Rajasthan and subsequently selected after following due selection process between 1976 to 1978 in the Dairy Federations. They continued to have lien with the parent department/State government as per the relevant G.O. and relevant Rules. They retired as employees of the Dairy Federations between 1999 to 2003 and received retirement benefits from the Dairy Federations.

However, after a period of six to nine years of their retirement from the Dairy Federations, they filed writ petitions before the High Court claiming pensionary benefits from the State government contending that their lien as a government servant in the Rajasthan government service had been continued.

The Supreme Court observed that the appointment orders of the respondents were very clear and they were appointed permanently after due selection, interview, and following the due selection process. The Court noted that there cannot be two liens on two substantive posts and that the respondents ceased to have lien with the State government once they were permanently absorbed and became an employee of the Dairy Federations.

The Court further held that the respondents shall not be entitled to the pensionary benefits from the State government as directed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar on April 28, 2023. No costs were imposed in the case.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan

Latest Legal News