IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that retirement benefits are a right of the employee, not a discretionary payment, and should be granted in accordance with established legal principles and constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge action of Respondent No.1-State and Respondent No.2-State and Joint Director, Higher Education in refusing to grant pension and other retirement benefits after the Petitioner having served for almost 38 years as Librarian in the college run by Respondent No.3-Trust.

3. Before we proceed to adjudicate the present proceedings, we wish to observe that we are deeply pained that a person in his twilight years after serving for close to four decades is sought to be denied his legitimate dues on a ground which Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education could have brought to the notice of the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.3-Trust and 4-The Principal at the time of his appointment and not after availing his services for four decades. We hope that the State would take appropriate steps in such type of cases to put their house in order so that if any procedure in the process of recruitment of a person has not been followed then the same would be communicated immediately to that person on being appointed and not after availing his services till the date of his superannuation. The State should take care that retired employees in such type of matters do not have to knock the doors of this Court for their legitimate dues.

4. We may now, briefly, narrate the facts of the present Petition.

5. Narrative of Events:-

(i) In the year 1982, the Petitioner was appointed as a library clerk by Respondent No.3-Trust for the college run by the said Trust. This appointment was subject to the approval of the education department.

(ii) On 16th March 1989, the Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Librarian in the institution run by Respondent No.3-Trust. The said order issued by Respondent No.3-Trust categorically states that the promotion and placement of the Petitioner is as per the instructions given in the Circular of 10th August 1981 and Government Resolution dated 18th September 1980 issued by Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education. The said order further states that salary of the Petitioner is subject to the approval of Respondent Nos.1-State and Respondent No.2-Joint Director, Higher Education.

(iii) The Petitioner after having served Respondent No.3-Trust for a period of almost 20 years was promoted to the post of librarian which is evident from the letter dated 18th August 1999 addressed by Respondent No.5-University to Respondent No.3-Trust approving the appointment/promotion w.r.e.f. 25/26th November 1991. The Petitioner continued to serve the institution in his capacity as librarian till the last day of his retirement which was 30th January 2020.

(iv) On 4th August 2020, Respondent No.3-Trust addressed a letter to Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education and sent the proposal of the Petitioner along with the documents for approval and payment of retirement benefits. The said letter records that all the necessary documents are enclosed herewith.

(v) On 10th August 2020, Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education issued a certificate certifying that the Petitioner has retired on 30th January 2020 and his pay matrix is Rs.57,700-1,82,400 and total basic pay is Rs.95,300/-. The said certificate has not been withdrawn till today.

(vi) On 23rd November 2020, Respondent No.3-Trust once again reminded the Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education with respect to the aforesaid proposal and once again enclosed all the necessary documents for processing the said proposal for grant and payment of the retirement benefits.

(vii) On 26th January 2021, Respondent Nos.1-State and 2-Joint Director, Higher Education addressed a letter to Respondent No.3- Trust stating that the Petitioner did not possess the qualification required for the post of Librarian. Furthermore, the trans