KSHIROD PRASAD DAS Vs. ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KSHIROD Prasad Das, a retired Junior Class -I Officer of the Orissa State Housing Board (for short, 'the Board') in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to release pension payable to him from October, 1996 and onwards.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition is that he while working as Scheme Officer in Junior Class -I in the Board, retired from service on 30.11.1993 on attaining age of superannuation. Provisional pension @ Rs. 1,337/ - per month was a sanctioned in his favour vide Officer order under Annexure -3 with effect from 1.12.1993. Accordingly, the petitioner drew commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 57.488/ - and so, his pension was reduced to Rs. 915/ -. He continued to draw his pension at the aforesaid rate along with temporary increase as admissible from time to time. On 1.11.1996 he authorised one Khageswar Parida to receive pension in the shape of account payee cheque, but he was denied of the pension. On enquiry from the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board he ascertained that the Board has reviewed the payment of pension in its 200th meeting held on 30.10.1996 vide Annexure -7. The further case of the petitioner is that though a set of Pension Rules applicable to the retired employees of the Board was drafted and sent to Government way -back in 1989, but the same has not yet been approved, so until a separate pension rules are adopted by the Board, the rules applicable to the employees of the State Government squarely apply to the Board's employees as per Sub -rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Orissa Housing Board Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'). In absence of approved rules and without there being any justifiable cause the authorities of the Board illegally and arbitrarily stopped payment of pension to the petitioner which was being paid to him from the date of his retirement. He being a retired employee and having no other source of income is fully dependent upon his pension to maintain himself and his family. For the inaction of the State Government in not approving the Pension Rules for long years he should not suffer and the pension as was being paid to him should not be withheld.

(3.) WE are shocked to find that the authorities of the Board in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner have denied pension to the petitioner which he is legally entitled to. Rule 5(3) of the Rules has been amended as is evident from the Notification in the Official Gazette dated 17.2.1990 (Annexure -4). By the aforesaid amendment retirement benefits, including pension as applicable from time to time to Government employees have been made applicable to the officers and employees of the Board. Until the new Rules came into force making any departure of the benefit of pension to a retired employee of the Board, there was absolutely no impediment on the part of the authorities to continue payment of the same to the petitioner as was being paid to him. We are unable to appreciate the stand taken by opposite party No. 1 that unless the draft Pension Rules lying with the Government since 1989 are approved, pensionary benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner. Why should the petitioner suffer for negligence and callousness of the Board and the State Government as well ? Why did not the Board pursue the Government to approve the draft Rules ? Why did it sleep over the matter till 1996 when for the first time it issued reminder to the State Government to approve the Rules ? This is a glaring example as to how State machineries are functioning.