Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the payment of pension is not a bounty but a recurring occurrence as it set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court that had dismissed a man’s plea on grounds of delay and laches.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal allowed a civil appeal by Starpayal Natarajan Iyer, challenging a single-judge order from January 24, 2022, which had ruled that the appellant had approached the court seven years after an order dated September 5, 2014.

The high court's division bench also on June 28, 2022, dismissed his letters patent appeal on the same ground.

n his arguments, the appellant's counsel submitted that the High Court should not have dismissed the special civil application on the ground of delay and laches without examining the merits, as pension payments are a monthly occurrence, giving rise to a fresh cause of action each month.

The counsel argued that, at most, the High Court could have limited the reliefs sought by the appellant.

He further submitted that the High Court was mistaken in concluding that the order dated September 5, 2014, was not challenged, as the appellant had accepted the order and sought retirement benefits based on it.

He urged the Supreme Court to set aside the impugned orders and to consider the appellant’s entitlement to terminal and retirement benefits.

The state’s counsel, however, argued that the appellant had remained silent for seven to eight years, implying his acceptance of ineligibility for terminal benefits or pension.

After considering the arguments, the bench observed, "We find that the payment of pension is not a bounty but a recurring occurrence."

The bench cited Justice D.A. Desai’s observations in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India (1983):

1. Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace dependent on the employer’s will.
2. It is not an ex gratia payment but a payment for past service rendered.
3. It is a social welfare measure providing socio-economic justice to those who, in their prime, labored for the employer, with an assurance that they would not be left in the lurch in old age.

"In the circumstances, we find that the High Court was not right in dismissing the Special Civil Application on the ground of delay and laches. Instead, the High Court ought to have considered the case of the appellant on merits and on the basis of the applicable rules and decided the matter on the entitlement of the appellant towards pension and other terminal benefits," the bench said.

After setting aside the High Court’s order, the bench remitted the case to the single judge for expedited reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Starpayal Natarajan Iyer Vs The State of Gujarat & Anr