Justice after 56 years: Pension rights can’t be denied, rules HC

In a scathing judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court condemned the denial of pensionary benefits to a retired employee for over 56 years, asserting that he was entitled to justice after rendering over a decade of service in a pensionable post. The appeal, filed in 2003, culminated in relief after more than two decades of litigation, indicating systemic delays in addressing pension disputes.

Allowing the employee’s plea, Justice Sudeepti Sharma directed the State of Punjab and other respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits, along with 9 per cent per annum interest, from the acceptance of his resignation in July 1964.

“It is very unfortunate that the State of Punjab and other respondents have deprived the appellant-retired employee of his right to pensionary benefits for about 56 years, to which he became entitled after rendering more than 10 years of service in the department concerned,” Justice Sharma asserted.

The court also ruled that pension rights were fundamental and could not be subjected to arbitrary denial. “If a person is working on a pensionable service, his rights to pensionary benefits cannot be denied by the respondent-department,” Justice Sharma added, while making it clear that pension was not merely a benefit but a right accruing from years of service.

Addressing the issue of limitation raised by the respondents, the court firmly rejected the stance that the appellant’s suit was time-barred. Referring to its recurring nature, Justice Sharma observed: “So far as the question of limitation is concerned or the suit filed by the appellant being time-barred, this court does not accept the same finding, since the grant of pensionary benefits to the employee is a recurring cause, and limitation would be applicable to the same.”

The matter was placed before Justice Sharma’s Bench in September and was decided in just four hearings in less than two months. The court, during the course of hearing, observed the appellant joined Punjab State Transport Department in May 1948 and served until 1964. The courts below held that the appellant had submitted resignation, which was accepted, and he himself had forgone his pensionary benefits by giving in writing. As such, he was not entitled to any retirement benefits.

Justice Sharma asserted both the courts below referred to his letter for absorption in the department of Punjab State Small Industries Corporation and his agreeing to forgo his pensionary rights if he was absorbed. But he was never absorbed. As such, his undertaking could not be used against him to forgo his pensionary rights. The court ruled that the employee was entitled to pensionary benefits from acceptance of his resignation in July 1964 along with interest.