Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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