ROHINI KUMAR DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case again depicts the casual and cavalier and criminal negligent attitude of the State of Assam to pay the retiral benefits to a person in time. The State of Assam has taken attitude as if the pension and retiral benefits are bounties available to a person at the mercy of the authority and they are doing charity by paying the same. The law is settled that if it is due to the person for the legal service put up by him, and if any authority is required for this one may have a look at the following decision:- (1) 1983 (1) SCC 305, AIR 1983 SC 130 (B.S. Nakara & Anr. -Vs- Union of India), wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the law as follows: "(1) Pension is neither a bounty ncr a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex-gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio- economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison d'etre for pension is the liability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution." (2) 1999 (3) SCC 438 (Dr. Uma Agarwal, Petitioner -Vs- State of U.P. & Anr.), Respondents, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the law as follows:

(2.) In Assam, the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 has framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But it appears that the Assam Government has always flouted its own males. Rule 95 of the Pension Rules provides as follows:

(3.) Regarding the retirement of the petitioner there were some dispute. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with that dispute, because that has been finally settled by a decision of the Civil Court and a decree has been passed in Title Suit No. 66/94 as well as in Money Suit No. 77/97. We are not concerned with that. That decree may be executed by the petitioner. Though he retired on 28.2.94, for the last six years he has not been paid the amount of provident fund, amount of gratuity and mainly pension from 28.2.95 (this will be the date of pension as the decree of the Civil Court it was clear that the petitioner was to retire on that particular date). There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner again and again approached the authority for payment of his pension and retiral benefits. But the authority did not do anything to pay pension to this poor and primary school teacher. It can be well imagined the hardship and difficulties faced by this person for not receipt of the pension for these last six years. Accordingly, I allow this writ application on the basis of the above decision and I direct to the authority that the authority shall pay the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. The authority shall also pay to the petitioner the amount of Provident Fund and Gratuity due to him in accordance with rules and laws.