LT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A new service jurisprudence is emerging in the country. A growing legal concern is being shown for the working population which is in tune with the socialistic pattern of society to which we are wedded. The Apex Court is striving its best to come to the rescue of the service holders when it finds them in distress. In Government Branch Pren Vs. D.B. Bellippa AIR [1979] SC 429 , it was ruled that though a temporary Government servant might have accepted appointment on condition that his service could be dispensed with without assigning any reason, it could not in fact be so done, and as such a Government servant also could not be "hired and fired". Ranadhir Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 , saw the Court proclaiming that "equal pay for equal work" is not a mere demagogic slogan. It gave flesh and blood to this cherished goal of socialism and thus came to the rescue of a number of discriminated employees. In People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, 1982(3) SCC 235 , the Supreme Court did not tolerate exploitation of workers by contractors engaged in State Project in connection with the Asian Games and directed the State to enforce Labour Laws applicable to the workmen to protect their interests. Bandhu Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 , gave a elarian call to free bonded labourers. In Indrapal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985(2) SCC 648 ; Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P., 1986(1) SCC 637 and Surendra Singh Vs. Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D., 1986(1) SCC 639 , great concern was shown for casual labourers. The Court directed payment of wages to them equal to those of regular workmen; their regularisation was also desired.

(2.) The holding in D.S. Nakara, AIR 1983 SC 130 , is of special importance for the case at hand as terminal benefits like pension, gratuity etc. have been denied to the petitioner in the wake of his resignation. Nakara held that (1) pension to a Government servant is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employee. (2) Pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past services rendered. (3) It is a social welfare measure rendering social and economic justice to those who in bey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.

(3.) Thus pension is no longer a matter of grace; it is an entitlement, a hard earned property and one cannot be deprived of it lightly or unjustly. There must be very strong reason to lead the Government servant to lose his saviour of retired life, his prop of old age. Any unreasonableness in this regard shall play foul of Art. 14, if State be a party to it, vide Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.