Court Highlights Importance of Retirement Benefits
Justice Farjand Ali’s bench ruled that pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits are the earnings of an employee for their years of service. Taking away or withholding these benefits after retirement would deprive the employee of the means to support themselves and their family, violating the basic right to life.
The court stated, “The pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services rendered by them. Withholding such benefits after retirement deprives the petitioner of the right to life because these are the sources by which the petitioner and their family arrange for their bread and necessities.”
Case Background: Librarian’s Benefits Withheld Due to Criminal Case
The petitioner, a government librarian who retired in 2022 after 37 years of service, had her retirement benefits withheld by the state due to a pending criminal appeal. In 2000, she was convicted in a case of abetment to suicide under Section 306, IPC, for which she had filed an appeal that was awaiting final judgment. Despite her years of service without any departmental misconduct, her benefits were withheld on the grounds that they would be granted based on the outcome of the criminal case.
Petitioner’s Appeal for Provisional Pension Ignored
The petitioner had requested provisional pension in line with Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which allows provisional pension when criminal or departmental proceedings are pending. However, the government ignored her plea, leading her to file a petition in court.
Her lawyer argued that the criminal case had no connection to her professional duties, making it unfair to withhold her retirement benefits. The court agreed, stating that denying her benefits caused her great financial hardship since she had no other source of income.
Court Refers to Previous Decisions on Pension Rights
The court referred to previous decisions by the Rajasthan High Court that upheld the right of employees to receive pension and gratuity despite unrelated criminal proceedings. In Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, the court had ruled that withholding pension due to unrelated proceedings was unjustified. Similarly, in H.R. Choudhary v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors, it was held that the mere pendency of an appeal against a criminal conviction was not sufficient grounds to withhold full pension.
Court’s Decision: Withholding Benefits Unjustified
The court ruled that the criminal case against the petitioner was unrelated to her duties as a librarian and should not impact her retirement benefits. Furthermore, her clean service record over 37 years supported her case for receiving pension and gratuity.
The court emphasized, “The basic purpose of retirement benefits is to ensure that an employee, after retiring, does not face financial problems. Withholding benefits solely due to a criminal case that has no connection to the employee’s official duties is unjustified.
No comments:
Post a Comment