Pension is recognized as property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and retrospective policy changes cannot deny superannuation benefits.

ORDER :

N.MALA, J.

The writ petition has been instituted to direct the respondents to pay the writ petitioner's superannuation benefits, including LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursement, from the date of his retirement. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a consequential direction to dispose of the e-mail representation dated 18.03.2021.

2. The writ petitioner retired from service as General Manager - Plant at Madras Fertilizers Limited. on 31.10.2014. While so, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai registered a case in RC MA1 2015 A 0038 on 26.08.2015 against the petitioner and others. The case was based on a source of information alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420 IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the petitioner and others. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.10.2014, and despite the respondents' undertaking to settle the petitioner's LIC pension, EL payment, gratuity, and medical reimbursements, the same remained unpaid.

3. Meanwhile, the management of the respondent organization appointed a retired High Court Judge as the Disciplinary Enquiry Officer to investigate allegations regarding the purchase of the four instruments, including an air compressor. The enquiry officer submitted his report, finding the petitioner not guilty of the allegations. However, the respondents were not satisfied with the findings. Consequently, the respondents formed an Internal Enquiry committee to enquire into the matter. The said committee recommended that the petitioner's increments be reduced by four years, which resulted in a reduction of the petitioner's benefits. Due to the stress caused by the said decision, the petitioner did not file any appeal against the order cutting four increments. The petitioner thereafter sent a representation to the 1^st respondent on 18.03.2021 seeking payment of his final settlement, including superannuation LIC pension, EL payment, Gratuity and Medical Reimbursement, but the same was rejected on 09.04.2021 by the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent in the aforesaid letter referred to a decision taken in the 311^th Board Meeting on 19.06.2020, for rejecting the petitioner's request. Hence, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

4. The respondent filed a detailed counter, replicating the facts in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondent inter alia, submitted that, pursuant to an amendment in the policy on 21.08.2020, the petitioner's final settlement could be considered only after the conclusion of the CBI case, which was expected to take at least a year. The respondent submitted that the petitioner's claim for immediate final settlement was without any merit, as the outcome of the on going legal proceedings, including the potential conviction, would have a direct bearing on his eligibility for full and final benefits under the revised policy frame work. The respondent therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent's amended policy decision taken in the 311^th Board Meeting held on 19.06.2020, could not be operated retrospectively as there was a six-year delay between the petitioner's retirement on 31.10.2014, and the respondent's decision. The learned counsel on the merits of the case, submitted that the transaction in question did not involve the petitioner, and the respondent's contention to the contrary were erroneous and untenable. The learned counsel further submitted that, pension is property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The right to property though not a fundamental right was nevertheless a constitutional right and therefore, the respondent could not deny his superannuation benefits citing the pendency of the criminal case instituted by the CBI and on a policy decision taken long after the petitioner's superannuation.

6. Per contra, th