Pension is a right vested in an employee, not a discretionary benefit, and financial difficulties of an employer do not justify withholding it.

1. The petitioner, a compositor, having joined the service of the first respondent Bank on 01/08/1979, retired on 28/02/2014, on his attaining the age of superannuation, after putting in 24 years of service. As the petitioner is entitled to his terminal benefits, the first respondent in October, 2013 forwarded the pension proposal of the petitioner to the second respondent, the Pension Board. In addition, the petitioner has also submitted Ext. P2 representation before the second respondent. When nothing concrete has emerged, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. On 06/02/2015, this Court issued an interim direction to the second respondent to disburse the proportionate pension to the petitioner. In compliance with the said direction, the second respondent has started paying the proportionate monthly pension to the petitioner beginning from 09/06/2015.

3. The principal objection of the second respondent to pay the full pension to the petitioner is that the first respondent, the employer, has not paid the full contribution. In that context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the first respondent Society's default, the petitioner, the retired employee, cannot be made to suffer by way of denial of pensionary benefit. Further, the pension, according to the learned counsel, has been declared to be not a charity, but a right of a retired employee.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent Pension Board has submitted that though the total pension fund contribution due from the first respondent Bank is Rs.6,67,557/-, It has so far remitted only Rs.1,64,414. In terms of GO (P) No. 185/2010 / Co - op., dt. 08/11/2010, the second respondent is required to pay the proportionate pension to the retired employees based on the contribution made by the employer. According to him, the second respondent has already communicated to the first respondent about the contribution due from it. The second respondent is ready and willing, submits the learned counsel, to pay the full monthly pension to the petitioner, as and when the first respondent Bank deposits the balance of its contribution.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent society, on his part, has submitted that the society has been virtually on its deathbed, so to speak, as to its financial condition. According to him, any precipitous or coercive action to realise the balance contribution from the respondent society would not only endanger the career prospects of the present employees, but also threaten the very existence of the respondent Society.

6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has claimed DA at 150%, whereas the DA all along had been only 87%. In the words of the learned counsel for the first respondent, unless this disputed question of fact is resolved and the pension contribution from the first respondent has accordingly been determined, it is not possible for the respondent society to pay its contribution.

7. On technical front, the learned counsel for the first respondent Society has also urged that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under various statutory provisions, such as Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.
7A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondent Society and the learned Standing Counsel for the Pension Board, apart from perusing the record.

8. The defence on the part of the respondent society can be summarised thus: (1) That the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy;
(2) that there are disputed questions of fact to be resolve