Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that pension is not a discretionary benefit but an earned entitlement for dedicated service. In a significant decision, the Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled in favor of Sh. Roop Lal, a petitioner who served in the Irrigation & Public Health Department.

Roop Lal, engaged as a Fitter on a daily wage basis in 1991 and later regularized in 2002, superannuated in 2010 after eight years of regular service. The minimum qualifying period for pension is 10 years of regular service. Although Lal approached the High Court 12 years after superannuation, the court recognized his entitlement to pension benefits.

Referring to pension as a social security plan aligned with the constitutional socio-economic requirements, the court emphasized its significance as a support system for the post-retirement period. The decision cited a Supreme Court verdict, directing the computation of services rendered as a regular employee.

The bench stated, "the purpose of pension, the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 38, 39 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of proportionate equality would be required to be read into the Rules as has been held by the Apex Court in Sunder Singh's case supra in order to give weightage of service rendered as daily wager towards regular service for the purpose of pension even to Class-III employees."

It specified adding a component for daily wage service at the rate of one year for every five years of service, with service beyond eight years but less than ten years considered as ten years.

The court has also directed the State Government to extend all pension benefits to the petitioner within one month, with monetary benefits applicable three years prior to the petition date.

It added that any benefits beyond this period will be on a notional basis. The ruling establishes the earned nature of pension rights and emphasizes the social and economic role of pensions in supporting individuals' post-retirement.

Case Title: Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Others