Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Suchitra Bala Roy W/O Late Subal Chandra Ray - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 3 Ors Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) 5420 of 2020
Decided on : 10-06-2022
Assam Services (Pension)Rules,1969 - Rules 140, 135 , 31 and 142 - Pensionery benefit - Payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity - Accountant General (A&E) has filed an affidavit and took a stand that as the service of husband of the petitioner was not confirmed and therefore, in terms of Rules 140 and 142 of Assam Services (Pension)Rules,1969, petitioner is not entitled for such payment - Person is confirmed in service and if he dies during his service, his family is not entitled for DCRG and while learned counsel for Accountant General (A&E) also could not throw light on his clients stand - Court learned Senior counsel to assist this Court on issue learned Senior Counsel that no such condition is available in the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - In such a situation learned Standing Counsel AG (A&E) had prayed before this court that he may be granted two days time to have instruction from his client matter was adjourned payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. (Para 22)
Finding of the Court:
Payment of deferred portions of salaries and pensions is un-exceptionable - Salaries are due to employees of State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute rightful entitlement of employees and are payable in accordance with law - It is well settled that payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by pensioners to the State - Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State - It was further held that though payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalise State Government, there can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate - Respondent State to pay an interest @ 6% per annum from the date on which DCRG became due to the petitioner and same be paid within a period of six weeks from receipt of a copy of this order - If payment is not made within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner to the respondent.
Result : Writ petition is disposed of
ORDER :
Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel for the A.G. (A& E) Assam and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for release of DCRG became due to the petitioner on the death of her employed husband. The employer way back on June, 2012 forwarded a request to Accountant General (A&F) for payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).
3. The Accountant General (A&E) has filed an affidavit and took a stand that as the service of the husband of the petitioner was not confirmed and therefore, in terms of Rules 140 and 142 of Assam Services (Pension)Rules,1969,the petitioner is not entitled for such payment.
4. During the course of hearing the matter on 7.6.2022 and after going through the provisions of Rules 140 and 142, while this court was unable to find out any condition which stipulates that until and unless a person is confirmed in service and if he dies during his service, his family is not entitled for DCRG and while the learned counsel for Accountant General (A&E) also could not throw light on his clients stand, this Court requested, Mr. U. K. Nair, learned Senior counsel to assist this Court on the issue. Mr. Nair, learned Senior Counsel submitted that no such condition is available in the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. In such a situation Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel AG (A&E) had prayed before this court that he may be granted two days time to have instruction from his client. Accordingly, matter was adjourned on 7.6.2022.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell by his communication bearing No. Legal Cell/Pen-6/WP(C) No. 5420 /2020/2022/ 86 dtd.NIL, address to learned counsel of the Accountant General (A&E) intimated that Payment order for DCRG in favour of the petitioner has been issued by way of payment order dtd.9.6.2022 However, the Senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell by his communication cited the reasons for non payment of DCRG, which are as follows::
II. Therefore, Rule 31 had constrained the office of the Accountant General from authorizing payment of DCRG.
III. In this regard the authority had relied on a clarification dtd.20.11.2018 issued by the Pension & Public Grievance Department addressed to the Accountant General relating to admissibility of DCRG in case of death while in service.
6. The said communication dated 20.11.2018 discloses the following:
(b) In case of temporary Government servant with less than 20 years of qualifying service without confirmation at the time of retirement in service, the prescribed Rule as laid down in Assam Services(Pension) Rules, 1969 may be followed.
7. However, such stand was not taken in the affidavit in opposition, rather the ground for refusal of DCRG to the petitioner was that Rules 140 and Rule 142 debars payment of DCRG until and unless a person is confirmed in service.
8. Though the stand as aforesaid is not taken in the affidavit in opposition, however as the same are stated to the grounds which, “constrained” the Accountant General in paying the DCRG in question, let this court deal with these contentions.
9. Payment and entitlement of DCRG is dealt in Rule 135 of the Rules 1969. Sub Rule 1 of Rule 135 provides that an officer who has completed five years o
Direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is un-exceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered.
Point of law: If employee claims DCRG under the KSR, the amount of gratuity will be determined under Rule 68 of Part III of the KSR, subject to the maximum prescribed thereunder.
The denial of family pension based on unreasonable deductions of service years violates legal principles of fairness; unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to pension as per amended Rule 143.
The State cannot benefit from its own wrong, and an employee, after rendering service for the complete career and upon attaining the age of superannuation, is entitled to pension.
The right to receive pensionary benefits is constitutional and cannot be denied based on non-regularization of service, particularly after long continuous service, as it violates principles of fairne....
State authorities are liable to pay interest on delayed pensionary benefits and DCRG when the delay in disbursement is excessive and unjustified, regardless of the reasons for the belated compliance.
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
