Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Withholding pension and retiral benefits for years together termed "illegal and arbitrary" by Rajasthan High Court

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, strongly criticized the state authorities for their illegal and arbitrary act of withholding pension and other retiral benefits of a retired employee for over five years. The court's scathing observations came during the hearing of the case titled Dayachand Arya v. State of Rajasthan.

The High Court remarked, "Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits of a retired employee for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary act but also a sin though not an offence since no law has declared so."

The case revolved around the petitioner, Dayachand Arya, a retired employee who had not received his rightful pension and retiral benefits since his retirement in January 2018. Despite repeated attempts to obtain his dues, Arya was left with no choice but to approach the court for redressal of his grievance.

The court expressed shock and surprise at the state authorities' failure to release the retiral dues, especially considering that there were no pending criminal cases or departmental inquiries against Arya. The withholding of the dues was deemed high-handed and liable to be deprecated by the court.

Referring to previous landmark judgments, including those by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that pension is a right earned by an employee through long, continuous, faithful, and unblemished service. The court firmly stated that the grant of pension does not depend on the discretion of the government but is governed by statutory rules.

Rajasthan High court reiterated, "The grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. The right to receive pension flows to the officer not because any order of the authority is required but by virtue of statutory Rules. This view was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court... This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law."

The court further highlighted that pension and gratuity are not mere bounties but hard-earned benefits that accrue to an employee. It condemned the state authorities for their failure to release the retiral dues, despite the availability of the petitioner's service record in their offices.

Observing the anguish and suffering faced by retired employees and their families in such circumstances, the court stated, "The pain and torture faced by a retired employee and his family in the circumstances created by the authorities can be easily visualized and felt but cannot be assessed in the way only those who really suffer know it. This pain and humiliation cannot be compensated in terms of money."

In its ruling, the court directed the respondents, the state authorities, to release all the retiral benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The court also ordered the payment of interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petitioner's retirement until the actual payment of the dues.

Furthermore, as a form of compensation for the harassment caused by the authorities, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondents. This amount is to be paid to the widow of the deceased employee at the time of the retiral benefits' payment. The court emphasized that no government official should have the liberty to harass employees by withholding their lawful dues.

The court's judgment serves as a reminder that pension is a valuable right of government servants and cannot be withheld without due process of law. It sends a strong message to the authorities that arbitrary withholding of pension and retiral benefits is illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of social and economic justice.

The judgment also highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that retired employees receive their rightful dues in a timely manner and that suitable compensatory relief is provided for any undue delay or harassment caused by the authorities.

Date of Order: 17th February 2023

DAYACHAND ARYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 

Latest Legal News