IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process 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

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