Pension is a vested right for services rendered, not a discretionary benefit; unjustified delays in disbursement violate fundamental rights, thereby mandating timely release of such dues.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders issued vide letters dated 29.05.2025 and 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-5 & P-6, respectively) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the action of the respondents in failing to fix the pension of the petitioner and to release the retiral dues thereof despite a lapse of period of ten years since his superannuation on 31.03.2024. Further still, the petitioner is equally aggrieved by impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 thereby again directing the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 for the redressal of his grievance instead of doing the needful in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 02.05.2025 in CWP No.12295 of 2025. He further submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 36 years of service and his work and conduct always remained satisfactory and he has retired way back on 31.03.2024.

Similarly situated employees have already been granted the benefit of the pension with effect from the date of their superannuation.

3. Learned State counsel could not controvert the factual position as asserted by counsel for the petitioner. However, he further submits that necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after considering the apparent facts and circumstances of the case as well as perusing the impugned orders, the case is decided in limine in view of the settled law and undisputed facts.

5. There is no justifiable reason for withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Further, the perusal of the impugned orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) indicates that the retired petitioner has been withheld without any justifiable cause and on flimsy grounds. There was no disciplinary proceedings or any charge sheet pending against the petitioner nor any document is due which the petitioner was obligated to submit, as such, the delay on part of the respondents in releasing the retiral benefits is not justified.

6. Pension and other retiral benefits do not possess a gratuitous nature. Rather, such benefits accrue to the retiree by virtue of dedicated service rendered by him to his employer for a significant portion of his life. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Nakara and others vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 has categorically stated that pension is not a matter or bounty or grace but a vested right. Speaking through Justice D.A. Desai, the following was opined:

“20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to recei