Post Retirement Benefits Are Property Guaranteed Under Article 300(A) Cannot Be Revoked Without Lawful Provision: Allahabad HC Reiterates
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, reiterated that pensions and post-retirement benefits are a property guaranteed by Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and cannot be revoked without a lawful provision.
The Court allowed a Writ Petition wherein the Petitioner was dismissed from his service and was refused post-retirement benefits due to his conviction after an accident. The Court observed that his conduct was not examined, which was a pre-requisite, and was dismissed for his employment solely due to his conviction.
“The Apex Court has taken a firm view in the matter of State of Jharkhand(Supra) that under Article 300(A) of Constitution of India, pension and other post retiral benefits are not bounty, but a property and cannot be taken away without provision of law”, Justice Neeraj Tiwari noted.
Advocate Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma appeared for the Petitioner, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Savitra Vardhan Singh appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner was appointed Lekhpal in District-Sultanpur and received his first pay raise in 1994 and second in 2000. Unfortunately, he was involved in an accident and was convicted of life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Petitioner filed a criminal appeal against the conviction and was released on bail by the High Court. When the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation he was dismissed from service due to his conviction and was denied post-retirement benefits. The Petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the District Magistrate and challenged the order. The Appellate order stated that the decision on post-retirement benefits would be made after the final disposal. The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the dismissal order while contending that the dismissal was not valid under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, as the conduct of the Petitioner was not considered.
The Court noted that the issue to ascertain was “whether, in case of conviction, service of petitioner may be terminated straightway without providing any opportunity to him in light of Article 311(2) (a) of Constitution of India or not”.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the State of Jharkhand & Ors. v Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr [AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3383] and observed that the impugned order was based solely on the Petitioner's conviction without considering his behavior. The Court reiterated that pensions and post-retirement benefits are not a gift but property guaranteed by Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and, as such, cannot be revoked without a lawful provision. The Court noted that an employee's behavior must be considered before terminating their employment, even after a conviction.
“From the perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2014, it is apparently clear that it has been passed only on the ground of conviction without having any discussion or application of mind over the conduct of the petitioner, which is mandatory requirement in light interpretation of Article 311(2)(a) of Constitution of India by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. Now this issue is no res integra. Apex Court from the judgement of Tulsiram Patel(Supra) to many other judgments has considered this issue repeatedly and has held that even after conviction of an employee, while passing the removal or dismissal order, there must have been consideration of conduct of the employee and without that, any order of dismissal is bad”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State of UP (Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko.) and Ors.
