Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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