Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)A.J. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 16 May, 1997
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject
matter of the present petition now is only to the extent of grant interest on
the delayed payments of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner
in view of the Full Bench judgement of A.S. Randhawa vs. State of
Punjab 1997 (3) SCT 468. He further submitted that the dates on which
different respective payments were made, have been so depicted in para
15 of the writ petition in a tabulated form which is reproduced as under:-
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
15. The law with regard to the right to receive the pension and
pensionary benefits is no longer res-integra and pension and pensionary
benefits are not a bounty of the State and the State does not do any charity
by giving pension and pensionary benefits. Right of receiving pension
and pensionary benefits is rather a Right to Property which is a
Constitutional Right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and
a person can only be deprived of his Right to Property with an authority of
law whereas in the present case the deprivation has been done without the
authority of law. Way back in the year 1971, a Constitution Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar",
1971(2) SCC 330, held that pension is not a bounty of the State and is
rather a Fundamental Right under Article 31(1) of the Constitution of
India. However, later on by virtue of 44th Amendment of the Constitution
of India, Right to Property became a Constitutional Right under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India instead of a Fundamental Right The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984
16. Thereafter, in "State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan
Nair", AIR 1985 Supreme Court 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be
distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are
valuable rights and property, in their hands.
Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 1999
The aforesaid authoritative
law was thereafter reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr. Uma
Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another", 1999(2) SCT 347 (SC).
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
17. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another authoritative
judgment passed in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and another", 2013(12) SCC 210 again discussed the entire
law pertaining to the valuable rights pertaining to the grant of pensionary
benefits. Para Nos.8 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as
under:-
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension
are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by
dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished
service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S.
Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by
Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his
inimitable style, in the following words:
Devaki Nandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 April, 1983
20. 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 has been swept under the carpet by the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan
Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R.
634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that
pension is a right and the payment of it does not
depend upon the discretion of the Government but is
governed by the rules and a Government servant
coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.
It was further held that the grant of pension does not
depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the
purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to
service and other allied maters that it may be
necessary for the authority to pass an order to that
effect but the right to receive pension flows to the
officer not because of any such order but by virtue of
the rules.
State Of Punjab And Anr vs Iqbal Singh on 12 February, 1976
This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab
and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh(6)".
Ishar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 September, 2014
18. A Full Bench of this Court in "Dr. Ishar Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another" 1993(3) PLR 499, also discussed the entire issue
with regard to right to withhold the pension and permissibility to withhold
the commutation of pension etc. was also discussed in detail wherein it
was observed that the entire pension has to be paid and it cannot be
withheld without any authority of law. The relevant portion is reproduced
as under:-