Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai - Appellant
Versus
Anuradha Devi, wife of Late Ashok Kumar Singh - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.1322 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11609 of 2014
Decided On : 01-02-2022
Service Law – Employment – State as a model employer, is a promoter of economic justice – Model employer is one having social conscience – It is expected to always exhibit fairness in action – It must conduct itself with high probity – Its action must be fair; consistent; ensuring rule of law and more specifically meet requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – It must not create a situation so as to put hopes of employee in despair – Its action must not be deceitful; treacherous; insensitive; betraying trust created of its employees – Trust, which an employee reposes upon employer, is not to be betrayed, for not only it leads to an unsavoury feeling amongst employees not having been treated in a dignified and fair manner, but also it not being a concept of good governance. (Para 5)
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Rule 43(b) – Constitution of India – Articles 31(1) and 300-A – Withholding/deduction of pension – Right to receive pension is a right to property – Such a right would still continue to be a constitutional right as provided under Article 300-A – Pension is deferred portion of compensation for rendering long years of service – It is a hard-earned benefit, accruing to an employee in nature of property – It is not a bounty to be dispersed contrary to rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee, live with dignity, in winter of his life – Such a right cannot be curtailed by way of an executive fiat – Power to curtail, has to be with purpose of upholding rule of law – Deprivation of a right to pension can be only by and an authority under law – Mere denial or cancellation of pension would not cease to be a right to property, for character of pension as a "property" cannot possibly undergo mutation, more so at whims of a particular person or authority – In present case, before deduction of any amount, principles of natural justice stood violated – In absence of any dictum of law, State Government could not have deducted the amount, as on date of death, no departmental proceedings stood initiated against employee – An employee/legal heir has a constitutional right to receive the same within time, so also State is under a constitutional obligation and duty to disburse it within time – Appellant shall positively pay entire amount in terms of impugned judgment to writ petitioner. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 19)
(1981) 1 SCC 449; (1991) 1 SCC 189; 1987 Supp (1) SCC 228; (1992) 4 SCC 118; 2013) 2 SCC 516; (2014) 2 SCC 114; (2013) 12 SCC 210; 2021 SCC Online SC 1078; (2020) 8 SCC 106; (2006) 7 SCC 651; (1971) 2 SCC 330; AIR 1968 SC 1053; (1983) 1 SCC 305; (2013) 12 SCC 210 – Relied.
LPA No.1777 of 2016, decided on 18.07.2017; 2018 (2) PLJR 933 – Referred.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, J.
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)
We are faced with the following issues:-
(ii) Is not the State’s relationship with its employee that of a trust, with a belief of a fair and just treatment in the process of disbursement of retiral dues and benefits?
(iii) Is not the State obliged to give prior information to the employee/ his legal heir(s) of deducting/retaining/withdrawing certain amount of money as pension?
(iv) Whether the right of an employee to receive pension in terms and under the Rules, is a constitutional right?
(v) Whether such a right can be curtailed without following due process of law?
(vi) Whether the retiral dues and benefits of the deceased employee can be withheld/deducted without initiation of disciplinary proceedings?
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 10 of Appendix E of the Letters Patent of the Rules of the High Court at Patna, 1916, is filed by the appellant, namely, the District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Begusarai, assailing the judgment and order dated 25.06.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.11609 of 2014 titled as Anuradha Devi Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.
FACTS
3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Husband of the writ petitioner, namely, late Ashok Kumar Singh, was a Village Level Worker from 14.05.2002. He was promoted as Block Agriculture Officer and posted at Begusarai Sadar Block on 03.09.2010. There, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in which he came out clean with no charge having proven against him. However, while posted with the present appellant (Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.) on 11.04.2013, the Block Development Officer, Sahebpur Kamal, asked him to make good the shortfall of the wheat stored in the godown of which he was in charge. Save and except mere issuance of such notice, no further action was initiated against him. Neither he was suspended nor any departmental proceedings ever contemplated or initiated. Unfortunately, on 11.09.2013, the said employee expired. Immediately thereafter, his wife, the present writ petitioner, filed an application seeking disbursement of all benefits, including pension, etc. However, vide order dated 13.12.2013, the writ petitioner was asked to make good the payment of the shortfall of 167 quintal wheat before issuing no dues certificate. It has come on record that Ashok Kumar Singh was an employee of the State Government and was posted with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and died while serving there. It has also come on record that the State Government transferred the said amount to the Corporation after deducting from the dues payable to the employee a sum of Rs.2,39,812/-, being the cost of 167 quintals of wheat.
4. As legal heir of her late husband, Writ petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure-6). In terms thereof, she has been asked to deposit the amount equivalent to the cost of 167 quintals of wheat allegedly found short from her husband's custody, enabling issuance of no dues certificate required for disbursement of her husband's retiral dues.
State as a Model Employer
5. State’s role as a model employer is now fully established and well defined. The fundamental principles can be culled out as under:
(b) It is expected to always exhibit fairness in action. [Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1991) 1 SCC 189]
(c) It must conduct itself with high probity.[Balram Gupta v.
Point of Law : It is clear like a noon day that the retiral dues of an employee like petitioner cannot be allowed to withhold because the documents were not received by any department from other depa....
Pension is a constitutional right and cannot be withheld without lawful authority; delays in payment warrant interest.
A pension is a right under constitutional law, and its claim can be waived if alternative benefits are accepted, as evidenced in this case by the employee's adoption of the EPF Scheme.
Pension is a valuable right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, and cannot be denied without due process. Recovery from a deceased employee's benefits is unlawful without established li....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
