Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7768
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J
DINKAR AMBALAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10260 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ASHISH H SHAH
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH
Commuted pension is a concession, not a right, and delays in requests can forfeit entitlement.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition for seeking payment of commuted pension - Petitioner retired in 2007 and claimed commuted pension, which was denied on grounds of financial constraints - The court noted that commuted pension is a concession, not a right, and the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right due to belated requests. (Paras 8-10)
(B) Financial Constraints - The court acknowledged the respondent's claims of financial viability affecting pension payments - It reiterated that pension commutation requests can be denied based on administrative conditions and employee claims are subject to such financial justifications. (Paras 3.3-4.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner retired as Office Superintendent in 2007, claimed commuted pension but faced denials based on administrative cost-cutting measures, despite a change in financial conditions favoring the municipality after upgraded pay scales.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that due to delays in the petitioner's requests and the nature of commuted pension as a concession, the request was impermissible; thus, the denial was justified.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around whether the delay in claiming pension forfeited the right to commutation and whether commuted pension constitutes an employee right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that employees do not have a legal right to compel payment of commuted pensions when financial constraints are cited, dismissing the petition for lack of merit due to the belated claims.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts concerning petitioner's request for commuted pension. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on the necessity of pension. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's rationale surrounding financial constraints and rights. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's observations on past rulings and current case facts. (Para 7) |
| 5. rules governing commutation of pension as a concession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. final decision dismissing the petition. (Para 11) |
JUDGEMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the respondent no.1.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as an Office Superintendent with the respondent Nagarpalika and retired voluntarily on 30th September, 2007.
3.1) The petitioner alongwith application dated 3rd October, 2007 submitted the requisite documents for fixing the pension. The petitioner also made application dated 21st February, 2008 before the respondent Nagarpalika for commuted pension.
3.2) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nagarpalika had fixed the pension of the petitioner but had not paid the commuted pension and therefore, the petitioner had made a representation dated 15th April, 2008. Pursuant to such representation, the respondent- Nagarpalika vide letter dated 26th November, 2008 informed the petitioner that since the administrative expenses of the Nagarpalika increased beyond 45%, the payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped.
3.3) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the respondent-Nagarpalika had adopted revised pay scales and conferred the benefits of such revised pay scales to its employees and therefore, the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd August, 2013 requested the respondent-Nagarpalika to pay the commuted pension to the petitioner in view of improved financial condition.
3.4) It is the case of the petitioner that the Collector-Kheda vide letter dated 17th September, 2014 had directed the respondent- Nagarpalika to consider the application of the petitioner for commuted pension in accordance with law and pursuant thereto, the respondent- Nagarpalika vide letter dated 10th April, 2015 informed the petitioner that the process of calculation of commuted pension is in progress and on completion of the same, the respondent Nagarpalika would take appropriate decision.
However, the respondent-Nagarpalika did not pay the commuted pension to the petitioner and therefore, being aggrieved by such action of the respondent-Nagarpalika, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- Nagarpalika is required to pay the commuted pension to the petitioner on his retirement in the year 2007 which was denied to the petitioner on the ground that since the administrative expenses increased beyond 45%, payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped.
4.1) It was submitted that in the year 2009- 2010, the respondent-Nagarpalika adopted the revised pay scale and benefits of the revised pay scale were conferred upon its employees and therefore, it is presumed that the financial condition of the respondent-Municipality was sound, but respondent-Nagarpalika failed to pay the commuted pension to the petitioner even after eight years of retirement.
4.2) It was further submitted that by letter dated 10th April, 2015 the petitioner was informed by the respondent Nagarpalika that the process of calculation of commuted pension was in progress and on completion of the same, the decision would be taken regarding payment of commuted pension but the respondent Nagarplaika did not pay the commuted pension to the petitio
