Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently observed that if officers address the grievances of pensioners, there would be no need for them to approach the courts.

“While parting we may also record that this case is certainly an eye-opener that if the officers promptly consider the grievances of the pensioners like the petitioner, there would be no need for the pensioners to approach the Courts. We may observe that many of such issues, in fact, do not require adjudication and can stand resolved at the level of the department, provided there is a willingness to do so, of the officers of the State Government,” the bench noted. 

The bench also observed that the pension is the basic entitlement of the retired employee and they cannot be deprived of the same.

“From the beginning of the present proceedings, we were wondering as to whether any person who superannuates after a long unblemished service should at all suffer such plight, after having rendered long service (in the present case of about 30 years) and be deprived of the basic entitlement of receiving pension, being the very source of livelihood,” the bench observed.

The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, was hearing a petition filed by a retired hamal (coolie) who served Savitribai Phule Pune University and was denied pension.

The high court noted that despite the petitioner rendering meritorious service, as acknowledged in the previous order, the pension had not been provided since May 2021 due to untenable and technical grounds.

The bench in its order dated November 21 called the state of affairs as “totally unconscionable”.

Jayram More, the petitioner, had approached the high court against the state government’s action of depriving him of his legitimate pension, despite all necessary documents for the payment of pension being supplied by the University to the Office.

The division bench referred to a 40-year-old Supreme Court judgment, stating that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer, is not claimable as a right.

While referring to the same judgment, the bench added that the Supreme Court had held that pension was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who, in the heyday of their life, ceaselessly toiled for the employer with an assurance that in their old age, they would not be left in the lurch.

The bench, in its earlier order, had directed the state government to take necessary steps. On Tuesday, the bench was informed that the petitioner’s pension had been finally fixed, and the arrears of pension had already been released and received by the petitioner.

The high court, however, emphasized that the petitioner be paid his monthly pension regularly and without default.

Case Title: Shri. Jayram Baburao More vs State of Maharashtra & Ors