0

The Rajasthan High Court held that it is unlawful to withhold an employee’s pension or gratuity, especially if they are already enrolled in an outdated pension plan

Blog , , ,

Title: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Decided on: 19 October, 2023

+ Civil Writ Petition No. 20043/2017

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Introduction

A Municipal Corporation was recently ordered by the Rajasthan High Court to release an employee’s pension and gratuity payments, ruling that it was unlawful, unfair, and capricious to withhold such benefits. Given that the petitioner had previously been enrolled in the Old Pension Scheme, the court further stated that the Corporation’s request for him to select between the New Pension Scheme and the Old Pension Scheme was unlawful.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s employment as a driver was terminated in 1985 after it was first hired on November 14, 1982. He then filed an industrial dispute, which resulted in an award that reversed his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full-service continuity. The Corporation appealed the decision, but it was turned down. The Corporation then filed an appeal, which was only partially granted and restricted the amount of back pay to the petitioner’s appointment date. The petitioner received a regular pay scale on January 19, 2006, and was restored on February 8, 2001, with effect from April 13, 1994. Regretfully, on July 5, 2006, this decision was withdrawn, which led the petitioner to pursue a civil petition in 2006. On December 16, 2008, the court granted this petition. The Corporation then went ahead and reinstated the order from January 19, 2006, which indicated that the petitioner was now a regular employee. The petitioner reached superannuation age on December 31, 2016, and retired after serving the required number of years. But even after a significant length of time had passed, the Corporation still neglected to pay the petitioner’s retirement benefits, such as his pension and gratuity. The petitioner filed a court case under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Courts analysis and decision

The Corporation’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s pension and gratuity was deemed unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable by the court. Accordingly, it was decided that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent annually under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, as well as gratuity and pension in compliance with the terms of the Old Pension Scheme. As a result, the court granted the writ petition and directed the Corporation to release the petitioner’s pension and gratuity as soon as possible, together with interest accruing at the rate of 9% annually from the date of due until the payment is actually made, which should happen within three months.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

Justice Prevails as Court Compensates Widow for Delayed Pension and Denounces Official Negligence: High Court of Patna

Blog , , , , ,

Title:  Jaymanti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & ORS.

Citation: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No:6338 of 2023

Coram: HONA’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Decided on: 04-10-23

Introduction:

It mentions the individuals who are involved or present in the case: Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, who is identified as the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, identified as “GP 4,” along with Mr. Manoj Kumar (referred to as “AC to GP 4”). Mrs. Ritika Rani, who is noted as the learned counsel for the Accountant General (Bihar). It is a civil Writ Petition.

Facts:

 The facts of the case are such that, The learned counsel representing respondent numbers 2 and 9 has filed a second supplementary statement of facts on their behalf in the court. The petitioner, represented by another counsel, has informed the court that there has been a delay of 15 years in the payment of retiral dues, including family pension. The petitioner’s husband passed away in 2008 while he was serving as a Chawkidar.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that pension is not a privilege but a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claim that the petitioner is entitled to compensation and interest, as per legal precedents, for the delay in receiving pension and other retiral dues, starting from the date of entitlement to the date of payment.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The petitioner, who is already receiving a family pension and has had some retiral dues paid, has faced a significant delay in the process, and this has caused considerable hardship to her as a widow and an illiterate individual. The court has expressed strong disapproval of the callous attitude of State Government officials, particularly the Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, and District Magistrate, in handling the petitioner’s case. In response to this, the District Magistrate has been directed by the court to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) in addition to the interest, based on legal precedents provided in the cases of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 and D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli (2014) 8 SCC 894.

The court has given a timeframe for the authority concerned to carry out this compensation, which is within four weeks from the date of passing the order. With these observations and directions, the writ petition in this case has been disposed of. This implies that the court has concluded its proceedings in this matter based on the provided judgment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Madras HC Directs T.N. State Transport Corporation to issue Succession certificate of an employee and disburse pension amount to legal heirs.

blog, Blog , , ,

TITLE: Adlin Mirudhula Vs. T.N. State Transport Corporation.

Decided On: August 30, 2023.

Writ Petition No.1688 of 2021 

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD.

Facts:

The petitioner’s father was working as a Driver under the third respondent and having Provident Fund No.5461 without any blemish of records and he died on 26.11.2023 in a road accident and the petitioner’s mother namely Mariaselvam, pre-deceased her father on 23.09.2013. The petitioner has one younger sister viz., Merlin and paternal grandmother namely Madhammal, who are the surviving legal heirs to her father and the Tashildar, Dharmapuri Taluk has also issued a legal heir certificate to that effect.  This being so, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.12.2019 before the second respondent, requesting him to disburse the death benefit of petitioner’s father as well as family pension. The second respondent passed an order wherein, it is stated that the name of nominees had not been registered in Service Register of her father and hence, he shall not disburse death benefits and he further directed the petitioner and her sister to approach the Civil Court for Succession Certificate so as to process their application for death benefits and family pension. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2020, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

In this case, the petitioner’s father was an employee in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) as Driver, who died in a road accident on 26.11.2013. He has not mentioned his children name as legal heirs in the Service Register as well as in the Provident Fund Trust Nomination Forms. Moreover, the petitioner’s father and mother are not alive. Hence, the petitioner was instructed to submit a Succession Certificate through Court so as to enable the respondents 2 to 3 to settle the benefits of their deceased father.

The Court held that there is no rival claim from any persons, since the death of petitioner’s father i.e., for the last ten years till 2023. If there is any rival claim, the respondents can direct the petitioner to submit the Succession Certificate from the Competent Court. But, in this case, it is not required. The petitioner and her younger sister are entitled for 2/3 of family pension of their late father and her paternal grandmother is entitled for 1/3 of family pension and the paternal grandmother has also given ‘No objection Certificate’ to that effect on 20.07.2018. Therefore, apart from that 1/3 share being paid to Mrs.Madhammal, the remaining 2/3 of share may be paid to the petitioner viz., Adlin Mirudhula and her sister Merlin.

Since, the petitioner’s deceased father was an employee of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division and the same has been excluded from the purview of the Employee Provident Fund Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 01.09.1998. The Provident Fund and pension benefits are governed only by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and not by the Employee Provident Fund Office, who is the fourth respondent and directed the 1-3 respondents to disburse the Pension amount.

Conclusion:

The Court said that there is no rival claim from any person, claiming the retirement benefits and other benefits of the late R.Sellappah, deceased father of the petitioner and directed the respondents 1-3 to disburse the death benefits of the petitioner’s father late R.Sellappan, who died on 26.11.2013 and to sanction 2/3 of the family pension to the petitioner and her sister Merlin and 1/3 of family pension to the petitioner paternal grandmother Mrs.Madhammal, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Dismissed the writ of certiorari and granted petitioner liberty to argue their matter before Armed forces tribunal

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,

Title: LT COL PRAVAL PETER RETD & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Reserved on: 14th July, 2023

Pronounced on: 18 th July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 3042/2023 & CM APPL. 11815/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHNADRA SHARMA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Introduction

Delhi High Court Dismissed the writ of certiorari and granted petitioner liberty to argue their matter before Armed forces tribunal, Keeping in mind the principles outlined in the judgment of Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar and also keeping in mind a more prudent redressal path for petitioner which is more efficient and effective.

Facts of the case

The petitioners, who were ‘premature retirees’ from the Indian Army and Air Force, held Permanent Commissions before their early retirement. According to them, their retirement pension and other perks were Due to their failure to fulfil the required twenty years of service, which is a requirement for getting a full pro-rata service pension, it was unjustly denied to them.

The Petitioners were allegedly forced to retire early after successfully completing 10 years of service, but before reaching the twenty-year milestone, due to reasons beyond their control. Despite the fact that this early exit was approved by the appropriate authority, the petitioners argued that the respondents had conveniently ignored the pre-commissioning military training and reserve service periods, which when taken into account would total more than the required twenty years of service for the grant of a service pension. They should be qualified for the pension because these periods were essential and contributed to their overall service time.

The Petitioners demand service pension, even on a pro rata basis, due to them on reason of their early retirement, based on the afore-noted inconsistencies in computation of their service periods and application of criteria for providing benefits to them.

They had previously filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 11893/2021], but due to the nature of the reliefs requested, it was rejected by order dated October 22, 2021, with the liberty to continue agitating the subject by launching a public interest lawsuit [“PIL”].

Petitioners elucidated their personal interest in the matter and urged the Court to consider their case within the ambit of the aforesaid writ petition, rather than as a PIL.

The policy dated February 19, 1987, which reportedly served as the basis for Respondents’ decision to deny benefits of pro-rata pension and other benefits like pension commutation and ex-servicemen status, was among the policies that Petitioners sought to have declared invalid in the instant petition in the nature of a PIL. They also sought a writ of certiorari to overturn the existing policy, non-statutory pension regulations, and other related instructions.

Analysis of the court

According to Regulation 34 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, which stipulates a minimum qualifying service of twenty years as a prerequisite for officers to receive service or retiring pension, the impugned communication, dated April 24th, 2019, cited in the aforementioned prayer clause, is Respondents’ decision.

Respondents claim that because the Petitioners are considered premature retirees, they are not eligible to benefit from Ministry of Defence policy dated 19th February, 1987.

It is important to emphasise at this point that the Petitioners fall under the purview of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and have access to a specialised forum for airing their complaints, the Armed Forces Tribunal (the “AFT”). However, the Petitioners opted to file a writ petition before this Court given to the ambiguity surrounding AFT’s ability to consider issues about the constitutionality of subordinate legislations, including rules, regulations, notices, and circulars.

Fortunately for the Petitioners, a recent decision by the full bench of this Court in Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) 9139/2019, has clarified the issue surrounding the competence of the AFT to entertain petitions challenging circulars, statutory rules, regulations, and policies. The court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal is competent to hear the challenge to the vires of the subordinate legislations, rules, regulations, notification.

We feel that the AFT, given its specialised character, would provide a more swift determination for the Petitioners’ complaints given the recent clarification provided by the judgement mentioned above and taking into account the larger circumstances. There is no question that the Petitioners have a direct, personal interest in the issue, which usually precludes using a PIL. We are also aware that the petitioners who filed the current PIL did so with the freedom provided by a coordination bench, and that their perception of our decision to refer their case to the AFT may be unjust given that they have been exploring legal options since 2021 without receiving any redress.

However, our understanding relating to the jurisdiction of the AFT, has evolved in the wake of the judgment referenced above. Therefore, it becomes prudent to steer the Petitioners towards a path of redressal that is more fitting, efficient, and effective i.e., the AFT.

The current PIL is dismissed, together with any related ongoing petitions. The Petitioners are given the freedom to express the complaints made in their petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal while keeping in mind the guidelines provided in the aforementioned Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar judgement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

0

Patna High Court directed the respondent to pay entire amount of GPF along with statutory interest to the petitioner

Blog , , ,

TITLE: Padam Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 19-07-2023

CWJC No: 7458/2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Facts of the case:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the retiral dues on account of group insurance, gratuity and commutation of pension have been processed. 

Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar, learned G.P. 20 appearing on behalf of the State submits that he has been informed by the Treasury Officer that the same will be credited into the account of the petitioner today or by tomorrow. Learned counsel further informs that in paragraph no.17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that total amount on account of GPF Rs.7,14,125/- has been paid to the petitioner whereas he is liable for payment of 18,00,000/- (Eighteen lac) along with the statutory interest as assessed by him. Learned counsel further submits that as informed by the District Provident Officer, the entire amount will be paid to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks after receiving deduction statement from the places of posting of the petitioner. 

Analysis of the court and decision:

Considering the information as provided by the learned counsel for the State, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the District Provident Officer, Munger, who is Incharge of Sheikhpura also, to ensure that the entire amount on account of GPF is paid to the petitioner along with statutory interest in accordance with law within a period of two weeks, failing which this Court will take appropriate legal action against the District Provident Officer, Munger (Incharge of Sheikhpura).

At this Stage, Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he will file a detailed representation before the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sheikhpura for making payment of remaining dues and the statutory interest, which still remains to be paid to the petitioner. He will also file a representation before the District Provident Officer, Munger, who is Incharge of Sheikhpura district to facilitate payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. 

It is made clear that the authorities must not delay in making payment of the retiral dues in accordance with law to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

1 2