Pension Cannot Be Ordered To Be Paid Except In Accordance With The Law: Allahabad High Court Observes
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench while allowing a review plea has observed that the pension cannot be ordered to be paid except in accordance with the law.
A Division Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “We may observe in this regard that there can be no dispute against the proposition that pension cannot be taken away except in accordance with the law, but at the same time, the pension cannot be ordered to be paid except in accordance with the law, and in any case, it cannot be ordered to be paid in violation of the specific provisions of law, which in the present case is the U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021.”
The Bench said it is true that the provisions of law regarding payment of pensions to retired employees are to be interpreted liberally, but the question of liberal interpretation would arise only when there is any ambiguity in the provision of law relating to the grant of pension, in which case, the provision would be interpreted liberally.
Advocates L.P. Mishra, S.S. Rajawat, and Devi Prasad Maurya represented the applicants while AAG Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, ACSC Amitabh Rai, and Standing Counsel Rohit Nandan Shukla represented the opposite parties.
In this case, a review application was filed for review of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court whereby the special appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Single Judge was challenged. The Bench held that the opposite party-petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits, including pension, considering that his services rendered as a Seasonal Collection Amin on a temporary basis, have been set aside.
The appellant was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon and thereafter he was appointed as a regular Collection Peon under the quota meant for direct recruitment from amongst Seasonal Collection Peon under the provisions of the relevant Service Rules. The case set up by him was that his appointment was a temporary one and, as such, in terms of the provisions contained in U. P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, the services rendered by him were to be counted for reckoning the “qualifying service” for payment of pension.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “… here the provision contained in Section 2 of the U. P. Act No.1 of 2021 are not ambiguous and, therefore, question of liberal interpretation of its provisions does not arise at all in this case. … Although U. P. Act No. 1 of 2021 had come into force with effect from 04.03.2021, it escaped attention of the Division Bench while it was deciding the Special Appeal Defective No. 259 of 2020 on 21.06.2021.”
The Court said that there is an apparent error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench dismissing the special appeal without taking into consideration the provision of U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the review plea and set aside the order of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Board of Revenue through its Chairman U.P. Lko. And 2 Others v. Ram Ji Shukla (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:40164-DB)
