Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Plea Challenging the Pension deferment Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A PIL has been filed in Andhra Pradesh High Court Challenging the move to defer the payment of the pension citing COVID-19 Pandemic.
A letter petition filed by Advocate Ravi Shanker Jandhyal mentioned that a state Government order dated March 31,2020 Clause (v) of this order concerned the deferment in paying 50% of the pension for the month of March, until further orders, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner cited the case of Jharkhand Government The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. (14.08.2013 – SC) : MANU/SC/0801/2013, which states as follows :
It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service.
Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0237/1982 : (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:
The approach of the Respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any
obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?
What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.
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 has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0658/1971 : (1971) Supp. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.
It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. v. Iqbal Singh MANU/SC/0459/1976 : (1976) II LLJ 377 SC.
It is further to bring it to the notice of this Court that even if finacial emergency is declared by the President of India under Article 360 of Constitution of India,the Government of Telangana cannot be authorised to reduce or order deferment of Pension or salaries.
In view of the above, G.O.Ms No.27 dated 30-3-2020 particularly clause (V) is liable to be setaside.
Considering these submissions the High Court took the matter as a Suo Motto Public Interset Litigation.
When the matter was taken up by a Bench comrising of Chief Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice M.Satyanarayan Murthy earlier this week the State sought a week’s time to file aa reply in the matter.
The case is listed to be taken up next week.
[Read the Letter]
