Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan 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