JAYRAM BABURAO MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution brings before the Court the struggle of the petitioner, who was working as a Hamal to avail pension, having retired from the service of Savitribai Phule Pune University. The petitioner has rendered meritorious service as noted by us in our previous orders, despite which on untenable/technical grounds, for a period of two years from the date of his superannuation, (i.e., from 31/5/2021) he was not paid pension. It is in these circumstances, contending that despite all necessary documents for payment of pension were supplied by the University to the Office of respondent nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner was being deprived of his legitimate entitlement to receive pension, the petitioner felt constrained to approach this Court by the present proceedings.

(2.) From the beginning of the present proceedings, we were wondering as to whether any person who superannuates after a long unblemished service should at all suffer such plight, after having rendered long service (in the present case of about 30 years) and be deprived of the basic entitlement of receiving pension, being the very source of livelihood. To our mind, such state of affairs is totally unconscionable, when it is settled about forty years back in the decision of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India,AIR 1983 SC 130 that 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 was held to be swept under the carpet, by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar,AIR 1971 SC 1409. In such decision the Supreme Court had authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules. It was held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to claim pension. It was also held that the grant of pension did not depend upon anyone's discretion. It was also held that only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to the service and other allied matters, that it was necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension would flow to the employee not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. The Supreme Court further held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer. It was held that it was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It was held that it was not an incentive but a reward for past service.

(3.) From the large number of cases coming to this Court it appears that the above words interpreting the Constitutional provisions are more forgotten than applied and implemented in its true spirit.