Blog

Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits of retired employees for years together, is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our constitution as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur through the learned bench led by Justice Kh. Nobin Singh in the case of Shri. Y. Thaiba v. The State of Manipur (WP(C) No. 418 of 2019).

The facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as the Assistant Teacher on regular basis vide order dated 27-01-1972 of the DEO, Directorate of Education(S), Manipur and he continued to work in that capacity till 28-02-1973 when he was sent on deputation to District Council, Tadubi. The petitioner, on deputation, started discharging his duties as an Assistant teacher at Liyai Primary High School under the Autonomous District Council, Senapati District, Manipur and had been rendering his service sincerely and faithfully without any stigma till the issuance of a conditional termination order dated 29-02-2008 by the Chief Executive Officer, ADC, Senapati, by which he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 29-09-2008(A/N) subject to the approval of the Director of Education, Government of Manipur. In order to grant the approval by the Director of Education, Manipur, he approached him and other concerned authorities by submitting representation after representation so that he could be formally allowed to retire from service and he could enjoy his pension and retiral benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition which was disposed of on 07-10-2016 with the direction that the State Respondents should pass appropriate orders so that the petitioner could enjoy his pension and retiral benefits within a period of two months therefrom. Since the State respondents failed to comply with this Court’s order, a contempt case being Contempt Petition came to be filed by the petitioner. Surprisingly, during the pendency of the said contempt case, the State respondents preferred an appeal, challenging the order dated 07-10-2016. After having heard the parties, this Court dismissed the appeal. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 07-10-2016, the Director of Education, Government of Manipur issued an order dated 11-02-2019 allowing the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 29-02-2008. After the said order being issued, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities/ respondents to release his pension and retirement benefits by way of a representation dated 29-03-2019. However, the State respondent failed to take any positive action thereon. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the respondents being the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries.

The Hon’ble Court held, “It is imperative on the part of the State Government to take immediate steps to ensure that the petitioner enjoys his pension and retiral benefits at the earliest possible. It is unfortunate that the petitioner after having retired in the year, 2008, has not been able to enjoy his valuable rights and property as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the last more than ten years and that too, after the order dated 07-10-2016 having been passed by this Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents shall compute the pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner and pay him the amount thereof within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, with interest thereon @ 8% per annum from date of his retirement till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani