An employee's right to pension is statutory and cannot be forfeited without due process, emphasizing the need for formal inquiry before denying benefits due to unauthorized absence.

JUDGMENT :

(Harish Kumar, J.)

Heard Mr. Arif Raza, learned Advocate for the petitioner, duly assisted by Mr. Md. Ataul Haq, and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, learned Advocate for the University.

2. The petitioner claims herself to be the only issue and legal heir of late Professor Sudha Verma (mother) and late Mauti Prasad Verma (father), as per the family list issued by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction for fixation and payment of all the pre and post retiral benefits, including Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance and GPF of the petitioner’s deceased mother.

3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner, late Professor Sudha Verma served as a Lecturer/Reader in the Department of Philosophy, Patna University from 31.01.1978 till her superannuation upon attaining the age of 62 years on 30.11.2004. On submission of joining of the late mother of the petitioner on 31.01.1987 till 30.09.1995 the University has paid her full salary and also deducted GPF contribution but all of a sudden the University arbitrarily stopped payment of her salary and other benefits with effect from October, 1995 vide letter contained in Memo No. 1416 dated 08.11.1995 and directed her to appear before the Medical Board and the Enquiry Committee. The erstwhile teacher moved this Court in CWJC No. 5988 of 1997 for payment of her salary for the period 08.07.1993 to 07.07.1994, 08.07.1994 to 16.07.1994 and 17.07.1994 to 31.08.1994. The writ petition was disposed off on 26.10.1997 directing the Vice Chancellor, Patna University to consider her claim. The claim of the erstwhile teacher was considered and salary for the different period was settled.

4. It is worthy to note that the mother of the petitioner subsequently preferred another writ petition bearing CWJC No. 735 of 2003 for salary of subsequent period which was disposed off on 02.07.2010 with the similar direction. The Vice Chancellor of the University considering the claim of the petitioner passed a reasoned order on 25.02.2015 which was put to question in CWJC No. 16478 of 2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that while the erstwhile teacher was waiting for the payment of her due salary and fixation of last pay before her superannuation, she had been diagnosed with serious ailments of Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder and her treatment was started in a reputed hospital of Mumbai. Despite the aforesaid fact, she sent all the necessary pension papers on 22.04.2016 through courier to the Head of the Department of Philosophy, Patna University and the copy of which was also sent to the Registrar of the University, who has received the pension papers and necessary documents. Nonetheless, the claim of the petitioner’s mother for pre and post retial benefits kept pending and in the meanwhile she died on 20.02.2018.

5. It would be also pertinent to note here that while the matter was pending consideration, this Court vide order dated 15.05.2023 directed the University to take a decision in the matter in relation to the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was duly considered by the Vice Chancellor, Patna University after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the same has been negated vide order dated 08.07.2023. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University has arrived at a conclusion that in the light of continuous unathorised absence from October, 1995 onwards till November, 2004, her services will be treated as confiscated. Thus, the question of pension/gratuity does not arise. It is also directed that due to depleted earned leave account, encashment is not admissible. Whatever amount will be in Provident Fund and Group Insurance schemes that may be paid to the nominees as mentioned in service book/successor-cum-petitioner. The petitioner on being aggrieved with the order of the Vice Chancellor, as discussed hereinabove,