Pensioners Won’t Have To Approach Courts If Officers Promptly Consider Their Grievances: Bombay HC Says After Pension Is Granted To Petitioner Following Interim Order
The Bombay High Court has observed if the officers of the government promptly consider the grievances of pensioners, there would not be any need for them to approach the Courts. The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man who had retired from his service and was denied pension. The Court made the said observation after the pension payable to the petitioner was fixed during the pendency of the writ petition, after the court passed an interim order.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain noted, “From the beginning of the present proceedings, we were wondering as to whether any person who superannuates after a long unblemished service should at all suffer such plight, after having rendered long service (in the present case of about 30 years) and be deprived of the basic entitlement of receiving pension, being the very source of livelihood. … this case is certainly an eye-opener that if the officers promptly consider the grievances of the pensioners like the petitioner, there would be no need for the pensioners to approach the Courts.”
Advocate Vaibhav Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner while AGP P.J. Gavhane and Advocate Rajendra Anbhule appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was working as a Hamal to avail pension, having retired from the service of Savitribai Phule Pune University. The petitioner had rendered his long service of about 30 years. He had rendered meritorious service, despite which on untenable/technical grounds, for a period of two years from the date of his superannuation, he was not paid pension. It is in these circumstances that despite all necessary documents for payment of pension were supplied by the University to the Office of respondents, the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate entitlement to receive pension and hence felt constrained to approach the Court.
The High Court in the above context said, “To our mind, such state of affairs is totally unconscionable, when it is settled about forty years back in the decision of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India1 that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court was held to be swept under the carpet, by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar. In such decision the Supreme Court had authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules. It was held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to claim pension.”
The Court also said that further adjudication of the petition is not called for, however, henceforth the petitioner be paid his monthly pension with regularity and without default.
“Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the fair stand as taken by the department, the petitioner would not intend to prosecute this petition any further and the same can be disposed of recording a receipt of the arrears of pension by the petitioner”, observed the Court.
The Court further observed that many of such issues, in fact, do not require adjudication and can stand resolved at the level of the department, provided there is a willingness to do so, of the officers of the State Government.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title- Jayram Baburao More v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:35084-DB)
