SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Mad) 73

MADRAS HIGH COURT
GANAPATIA PILLAI
M.Sajjanam
Versus
State of Madras, represented by Collector of Kanyakumari District
Second Appeal No. 225 of 1962
Decided On : 23February, 1962

Advocates Appeared:
S. Chellasami and D.R. Srinivasan, for Appellant.

A government servant does not have an enforceable right to pension, as it is an ex-gratia payment made at the discretion of the government.

Headnote:

Pension - Retired Government Servant - The court held that a government servant does not have an enforceable right to pension, as it is an ex-gratia payment made at the discretion of the government. No suit would lie to declare a right to a pension, as a government servant cannot claim a legal right to it. The second appeal was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a retired District Munsif, filed a suit to establish a claim for higher pension, though it was prayed that the suit was for re-settlement of the pension due to the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that a government servant does not have an enforceable right to pension and that no suit would lie to declare a right to a pension.

Issues: The main issue was the proper pension payable to a retired government servant and whether the suit for higher pension was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a pension is an ex-gratia payment made at the discretion of the government and that a government servant cannot claim a legal right to it.

Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The question pressed in the appeal relates to what is termed proper pension payable to a Retired Government servant. The erstwhile State of Travancore fixed a certain pension for the plaintiff who had rendered service as District Munsif. The suit was laid in effect to establish a claim for higher pension, though in the relief column it was prayed that the suit was for re-settlement of the pension due to the plaintiff.

It is well known that no Government servant has an enforceable right to pension. A pension is an ex-gratia payment made to a Government servant in respect of his past conduct and service out of the discretion of the Government. It is open to them to refuse pension to a Government servant, though such refusal must be based upon grounds set forth in the Civil Service and Pension Rules. I presume similar rules apply to the Travancore Government Servants. No suit would lie to declare a right to a pension, as a Government servant cannot say that he has got a legal right to a pension. If there was no legal right to a pension, the suit would not be a suit cognisable by a civil court because the Government servant has no right to any property or any office which is cognisable by a civil Court under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Though this ground does not seem to have been relied upon by either Court in dismissing the claim, this is sufficient to show that the second appeal is not maintainable.

2. The Second Appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top