Delay in payment of pension to a retired employee is grossly unjust, and the respondents cannot withhold pension when the disputed amount is in their hands.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The writ petition challenges the order withholding the payment of pension in a new pension regulation that was put in place in the year 2004 which gave an option to persons, who had retired prior to 01.01.2004, who had opted for payment of pension, provided the contributory provident fund contribution of the employer was paid by the ex-employee. It is not denied that the petitioner was eligible for being admitted into the scheme of pension and that he had not merely exercised the option but he had also paid the EPF contributions of the employer.

2. The justification for not releasing the pension to the petitioner, as forcibly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was still an unadjusted amount of Rs. 45,000/- which had been a subject of dispute at the instance of the petitioner and which represented an amount of advance realized against the EPF accumulations when he was still in service. It appears the writ petition is pending before this Court. It is a case where an amount of Rs. 45,000/- stands in the hands of the respondents and it is not as if any amount remains payable by the petitioner to the respondents. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that till the writ petition relating to a challenge for the rejection of Rs. 45,000 and odd still remains unresolved, it shall not be possible to issue a No Due Certificate to consider the petitioner as eligible for the release of pension.

3. If the amount were ever to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents and no credit was available in the hands of the respondents, the contention of the respondents could be appreciated but in a case where the respondents have the amount which the petitioner claims as having been wrongly withheld is in their hands, the respondents cannot come to any harm by considering the claim of the petitioner for pension. If it were to be found subsequently that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the amount withheld as devoid of substance and the petitioner is not entitled to such consideration, the amount will stand duly adjusted and any payment of pension made in the meanwhile, cannot suffer any further deduction. On the contrary, if the petitioner succeeds in the other writ petitions, still it would be a case of the respondents becoming liable to make the payment over and above the pension that could be released and any payment of pension made now cannot cause any financial loss or prejudice to the respondents.

4. If it is an admitted position that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of pension, any cause for a delay to a retired employee of such payment shall be grossly unjust for it is almost a cliche that pension is a deferred wage of an entitlement to an employee for the service rendered and is not gratuitous by the respondents to hold back.

5. The impugned orders are, under the circumstances, quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be released with the arrears of pension with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date when it fell due. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. Petition allowed.