HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reading of the impugned order dated 20.3.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2014, what appears to us, is that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the right of the employee to receive pension immediately preceding the day the employee superannuates from service. The debate regarding nature of pension; whether it is purely gratuitous or a reward for past services, was finally settled in "Deokinandan Prasad v/s. State of Bihar and others" : (1971) 2 SCC 330, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right of an employee to receive pension is akin to right to property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order, the State cannot withhold the same.

(2.) The concept of retiral benefits to a citizen has evolved on the consideration that an employee, who rendered service during the useful years of his life, must not be left to penury in his old age. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "D.S. Nakara and others v/s. Union of India", 1983 (47) FLR 42 (SC) held as under:

(3.) The right to receive Leave Encashment earned on retirement has been held, in "Union of India v/s. Gurnam Singh" : (1982) 2 SCC 314, a condition of service. Equally true is the concept that Gratuity and Provident Fund are retiral benefits, which are governed by various statutes. The various enactments on the subject are in pursuance of the Constitutional goal enshrined under Article 37, Article 41 and Article 43 of the Constitution of India. In "Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and others" : (1984) 3 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: