Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a scathing indictment of prolonged delays in releasing retirement benefits, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has denounced the practice as "arbitrary, illegal, and sin."

The CAT bench, led by M S Latif, emphasised that withholding retirement benefits for extended periods contradicts the principles enshrined in the constitution. The tribunal asserted that “Withholding of retiral benefits of retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but is a sin, if not an offence.”

This rebuke came in response to a petition filed by Kaka Jee Koul (applicant), a 64-year-old former Sub Inspector in the Home Department (respondents), who retired on March 31, 2020. Koul sought promotion benefits withheld due to a pending criminal case, which he was later acquitted of. Despite repeated representations, his pensionary benefits remained unreleased.

The primary contention raised by the applicant was that the “right to receive pension/salary has been held to be a fundamental right and because of the inaction of the respondents in not doing the needful, the applicant’s right to life guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being infringed.”

Advocate S.N.Ratanpuri, appearing for the applicant argued that officials responsible for such delays should be apprehensive about committing such acts. It was submitted that “officials who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment to the retired employees should, however, feel afraid of committing such a sin as it is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our Constitution.”

The tribunal found support in legal precedents including observations from Lord Hailsham in Cassell and Company Limited Vs. Broome (1972 AC 1027), Lord Delvin in Rookes vs. Barnard & Ors. (1964 AC 1129), and the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta JT 1993(6) SC 307. Additionally, it cited Mukti Nath Rai vs. State of UP (1992 (2) SCC 644), emphasising the need for prompt release of post-retirement dues.

The tribunal acknowledged the importance of treating pensioners with compassion stating that “pensioners deserve to be treated with a smile and a soft gloves attitude.”

The tribunal disposed of the plea by directing the respondents to promptly decide on the applicant's representation, as per his entitlement, preferably within four weeks.

 

Cause Title: Kaka Jee Koul v Government of J&K [O.A.NO./ 276 OF 2024]