Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Pension is a Right, Not a Bounty: Jharkhand High Court on Pensionary Benefits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court Orders Immediate Release of Pension, Gratuity, and Other Benefits to Former Lecturer Despite Pending Criminal Cases

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, presided over by Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, has directed the immediate release of pension, gratuity, group insurance, and leave encashment benefits to Shanti Devi, a former lecturer, despite the pendency of criminal cases against her. The judgment underscores that the mere pendency of criminal cases without conviction is insufficient grounds for withholding pensionary benefits. The decision reaffirms pension as a property right under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, aligning with several precedents set by the Supreme Court of India.

Shanti Devi, the petitioner, served as a lecturer at various institutions and was also appointed as a member of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. During her service, multiple criminal cases were filed against her, resulting in her suspension and subsequent retirement under Section 67 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Despite being acquitted in some cases and not convicted in others, her pensionary benefits were withheld by the authorities on the grounds of the pending criminal cases.

The court emphasized that pension and other retiral benefits are not discretionary but are earned by employees through their service. “Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government,” the judgment quoted from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar.

Justice Pathak cited several key judgments, including D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, which described pension as a deferred salary and a right, not a gratuitous payment. The judgment also referenced State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, highlighting that pension cannot be withheld without specific statutory provision, reaffirming it as a constitutional right under Article 300A.

The court extensively discussed the principles governing the withholding of pensionary benefits. It ruled that the absence of any departmental proceedings against the petitioner further invalidated the grounds for withholding her benefits. The court stated, “In the absence of any specific rules, pension being a right in ‘property’ cannot be withheld, and the same is impermissible.”

Justice S.N. Pathak remarked, “Pension, as well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to the right of property.” This statement encapsulates the court’s stance on the inviolability of pension rights irrespective of pending criminal cases.

The Jharkhand High Court’s decision to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to release Shanti Devi’s pensionary benefits within 12 weeks sets a strong precedent. It sends a clear message that the pendency of criminal cases without conviction cannot be a basis for denying pension rights. This judgment is likely to impact future cases significantly, reinforcing the legal framework protecting the rights of retired employees.

 

Date of Decision: 16th May 2024

Shanti Devi v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Similar News