State Cannot Deny Arrears Of Pension Merely On Grounds Of Delay Without Considering Medical Evidence: Kerala High Court

"The bar under Rule 120 of Part III KSR is not an absolute bar against granting arrears of pension even for a period of more than three years; it requires a considered decision by the Government based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 6, 2026, held that the State cannot arbitrarily deny arrears of pension to a retired employee under Rule 120 of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) solely on the ground of delay, particularly when valid medical documentation substantiating the inability to apply is presented.

A bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. emphasized that the power to grant pensionary benefits is a matter of constitutional right under Article 300A, and administrative rejection without meaningful consideration of medical records constitutes a failure of justice.

The respondent, a retired Nursing Assistant, superannuated on April 30, 2007, but submitted his formal pension application only in 2017, citing severe illness, including cardiac issues and rheumatoid arthritis. While pension was sanctioned effective from December 2017, the Government rejected his claim for arrears from 2007 to 2017, citing Rule 120 of Part III KSR and claiming a lack of "sufficient evidence" regarding his medical condition. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal set aside this rejection, prompting the State to file the present original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The primary question before the court was whether Rule 120 of Part III KSR imposes an absolute bar on granting pension arrears if the application is made more than three years after retirement. The court was also tasked with determining whether the failure of the Head of Office to comply with the mandatory notification procedures under Rule 115 of the KSR could be held against a pensioner who failed to apply in time.

The court clarified that Rule 120 does not extinguish the right to pension after three years; rather, it prescribes a procedure where Government sanction is required. The bench noted that this provision exists to filter out frivolous claims, not to deprive a bona fide retiree of earned terminal benefits.

Statutory Duty of the Head of Office

The bench underscored that Rule 115(a) of the KSR places a proactive obligation on the Head of Office to send a notice to retiring employees to furnish pension applications. While employees share a responsibility to be aware of their retirement timeline, the failure of the State to follow the mandatory procedural step of notifying the employee cannot be ignored when determining the equity of the claim.

Court Explains Scope of Rule 135

The High Court categorically rejected the State’s reliance on Rule 135 of Part III KSR, which deals with the lapse of "undrawn" pension. The bench held that this rule applies to pensions already sanctioned that remain uncollected, and it has no application to a scenario where the pension itself had not yet been processed or granted.

Strict Scrutiny of Medical Grounds

The court observed that the Government had failed to justify why it adopted inconsistent yardsticks in evaluating medical evidence. Noting that similar medical documentation had been accepted for other pensioners in the past, the bench held that the rejection order failed to demonstrate a fair application of mind, rendering it legally unsustainable.

Arbitrariness and Fundamental Principles

The bench reiterated that pension is a property right protected under Article 300A. Quoting the principle that the deprivation of such property must be based on a procedure that is "just, fair, and reasonable," the court found the State’s mechanical rejection to be ultra vires.

Finding no patent perversity or manifest error in the Tribunal’s order, the High Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the directive to disburse the arrears. The petition filed by the State was consequently dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s mandate to release the pensionary dues within four months.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026