Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 889 (RAJ)

Narayan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1994-11-11

R.R.YADAV

body1994
Honble YADAV, J. — The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to settle the pension payable to the petitioner from the date of his retirement on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner being an Ex-serviceman, was appointed as Physical Teacher on 9.8.58 by the respondents and he retired on 25.5.88 on the basis of the order dated 24.5.88 Annx. P/l to the writ petition issued by respondent No.4. It is not disputed that the age of retirement of the petitioner being Ex-serviceman was 55 years but due to fault of the department he was not retired at the due date after completion of 55 years of age but was allowed to continue to work on the post for a period of one year and one month more. It is alleged by the petitioner; that the Section Officer of Removal of Public Grievance Department of Government of Rajasthan wrote to respondents No.3 and 4 to settle the pension and he also recommended for making payment of arrears of the pension of the petitioner. It is undisputed that the petitioner is getting provisional pension at the rate of Rs. 544/- per month. (2). After service of notices, respondents No.l to 4 have filed joint return stating therein that the petitioner was to retire at the age of 55 years but he did not point out to the authorities concerned that he has completed 55 years of age, therefore, he should be deemed to have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation after completing 55 years. According to the allegations made by the respondents in their return, he kept silence and did not bring to the notice of the authorities, which has created complications in final settlement of the pension after his retirement. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, the petitioner continued to work on the post for a period of one year and one month more and when the aforesaid fact came to their knowledge, order of his retirement was passed on 24.5.88. According to the respondents, the authorities are not to be blamed for delay in settlement of the pension. (3). I have heard Mr. K.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents at length. (4). According to the respondents, the authorities are not to be blamed for delay in settlement of the pension. (3). I have heard Mr. K.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents at length. (4). A close scrutiny of the averments made in the instant writ petition and the return filed on behalf of the respondents No.l to 4 leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner retired on 25.5.88 and upto six years, his pension has not been settled on the pretext that the petitioner did not bring the fact to the notice of the authorities that he has attained the age of superannuation. (5). As a matter of fact, the respondents themselves are at fault for not passing the order of retirement after attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner. The entire service record of the petitioner was with them and as such, the negligence on the part of the respondents cannot be attributed to the petitioner, who cannot stop working,till the notice of retirement is issued to him. , (6). It is settled principle of law that payment of pension is not a bounty paid by the department but as a matter of fact, the pension is payable to an employee in lieu of the services rendered by him to the department. In such a situation, long delay of more than six years in making the final settlement of the payment of pension to the petitioner is to be deprecated. (7). Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel for respondents No.l to 4 had brought to my notice that the payment of pension has been finally settled and regularised by the department and relevant papers have been sent to the Sub Treasury Officer, Bilara. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition has become infructuous. (8). Mr. K.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. (Dr.) Padma Rawat vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (1). According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, the authorities have shown insensitiveness to the plight of the petitioner. (9). According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, the authorities have shown insensitiveness to the plight of the petitioner. (9). In the instant case, the respondents have shown insensitiveness to the plight of the petitioner who retired long back and in such a situation, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation or interest on the unpaid amount of pension payable to him. (10). In reply to the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.l to 4 submitted before me that the case of Smt. (Dr.) Padma Rawat (supra) is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, in case of Smt. (Dr.) Padma Rawat, no pension was paid but in the present case, the petitioner was being paid at the rate of Rs. 544/- per month, therefore, according to him, instead of directing to pay compensation this Court may grant interest at the rate prevailing today in the Banks on the balance amount, which remained unpaid. (11). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondents, In my humble opinion, the case of Smt. (Dr.) Padma Rawat is not attracted in the present case, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice instead of paying compensation to the petitioner, he is entitled to be paid interest on balance unpaid amount of pension at the rate of 11% per annum with effect from the date when the same became payable to him. (12). As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of with costs, which is assessed to be Rs. 500/- with a direction to pay interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the unpaid amount of pension with effect from the date when the same became payable to the petitioner. (13). Before parting with the judgment, it is hereby held that the administration of Rajasthan will keep in view that right to livelihood has been included within the sweep of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. right to life, therefore, the procedure for payment of retiral benefits should be just, fair and reasonable. (13). Before parting with the judgment, it is hereby held that the administration of Rajasthan will keep in view that right to livelihood has been included within the sweep of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. right to life, therefore, the procedure for payment of retiral benefits should be just, fair and reasonable. No specific rules regarding payment of pension to the incumbent in State of Rajasthan has been brought to my notice today, if there are such rules those rules has to be made just, fair and reasonable and the rules regarding payment of pension to retired person, cannot be said to be just, fair and reasonable if the retiral benefits are not paid within one month from the date of his retirement. The service record and other papers regarding payment of pension should be completed by the department before 2 months, from the date of attaining the age of superannuation of the incumbent and immediately on the date of retirement he should be paid gratuity and the payment of regularised pension should be ensured with the next following month in order to facilitate a dignified living of a retired person, who had served the State for such a long time.