Granting Pension Benefits To Individual Who Served For Mere 5 Years Would Create Inequitable Disparities: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court observed that, granting pension benefits to an individual who has served for a mere five years would create inequitable disparities.

The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition challenging an Order by which the claim of an employee for post-retirement benefits was dismissed.

A Single Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi held, “The Court’s intervention in granting pension benefits where none exists under the applicable rules would set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging similar claims and placing an undue burden on the state exchequer. Such an approach could lead to arbitrary and unsustainable financial obligations, undermining the principle that pension entitlements must be rooted in law and based on clear statutory provisions. Additionally, granting pension benefits to an individual who has served for a mere five years would create inequitable disparities, as pension schemes are typically designed to reward long-term service, ensuring fairness and fiscal responsibility in public finance management.”

Advocate Debesh Panda appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while ASC Sonak Mishra appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

Brief Facts -

The Petitioner was a social worker involved in various public welfare initiatives and served as a private citizen until his appointment to the position of State Information Commissioner (SIC) in Odisha. In 2008, a committee was constituted in terms of Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to evaluate and recommend the names of persons for appointment to the posts of SICs in Odisha. In furtherance of the recommendations of the Committee, the Governor of Odisha approved the appointment of the Petitioner as SIC, following which a notification was issued and he was consequently appointed. He duly completed the prescribed tenure of five years in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, and was permitted to relinquish office in 2013.

The dispute arose post the retirement of the Petitioner. He contended that while Section 16(5) of RTI Act refers to “service, allowances, and other terms and conditions,” which he interprets to include post-retirement benefits, the State has not formalized the service conditions, including such benefits, for SICs through any official resolution, order, or memorandum. The State had issued an official resolution regarding the service conditions of SICs; however, no equivalent policy decision was yet made for SICs. Being aggrieved by such omission, the Petitioner submitted multiple representations before ultimately approaching the High Court.

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is significant to note that the Petitioner himself participated in meetings where the recommendation was made to urge the State Government to establish rules for the provision of post-retirement benefits to State Information Commissioners. Given that the Petitioner was fully aware of the terms of his service both at the time of his appointment and when he retired, he cannot now claim entitlement to pension benefits, particularly when such benefits were never extended to his post during his tenure.”

The Court further reiterated that in the absence of any statutory provisions regarding the release of pension or pensionary benefits, and where the State Government cannot be compelled to provide the same, the individual is not entitled to receive any pension or post-retirement benefits.

“Pensionary benefits are governed by established statutory frameworks, which provide clarity on eligibility and entitlement. Absent such statutory provisions, judicial intervention cannot create a right where none exists. The courts must respect the legislative and executive domains and refraining from making policy decisions that are within the purview of the State. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to legislate or mandate benefits that have not been statutorily prescribed”, it also emphasised.

The Court said that in the absence of any Rules that explicitly recognize the entitlement of SICs to receive pension, there can be no legal right for them to claim such benefits.

“… this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to pension or post-retirement benefits”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Jagadananda v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Debesh Panda and S. Guman Singh.

Opposite Parties: ASC Sonak Mishra, Advocates B.K. Dash, and R.B. Dash.

Click here to read/download the Judgment