CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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