On November 21, the Bombay High Court (HC) highlighted the essential nature of pensions and termed it as a basic entitlement of retired employees. The court made these remarks in addition to criticising the Maharashtra government for delaying the pension of a retired employee for more than two years. The court slammed the government for its act and termed such actions "unconscionable."
In this instance, Jayram More, a former "hamal" (coolie) at Savitribai Phule Pune University from 1983, was seeking that the Maharashtra government should deliver the release of his pension.
A division bench consisting of Justices GS Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain was hearing the matter. The bench denounced the state's position in this instance, terming the circumstances intolerable.The High Court complimented More for his exceptional and perfect service and expressed disappointment that, despite providing the necessary paperwork to the relevant government department, technical difficulties had prevented the pension from being disbursed for the past two years after his retirement in May 2021.
The bench said that from the start of the proceedings, they were wondering why a person who has served for so long, should at all suffer and struggle with pension issues. After having rendered a long service of about 30 years and being deprived of the basic entitlement of pension, being the very source of livelihood, the person should not suffer, the court observed.
Citing a 40-year-old decision from the Supreme Court, the bench emphasized the antiquated notion that pensions are optional. Pensions are rights, not gratuitous benefits that rely on an employer's generosity, according to the Bombay High Court.
In such a decision, the Supreme Court had authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the government and would be governed by the rules, the court stated.
The court had issued judgments instructing the government to disburse More's pension and debts within four weeks.
The bench acknowledged that the case was solved and stressed that More should receive a regular monthly pension. The bench of Bombay HC also made an appeal to the government to ensure that there are no more delays in this task.
The High Court emphasised that administrative disagreements like this should be resolved internally within the departmental levels, requiring public officials to act quickly. This case illustrates how important it is to have departmental grievances addressed quickly in order to keep them out of the courts.
The bench noted that many of these concerns, in fact, can be settled at the departmental level and don't even need to be adjudicated upon if state government authorities are prepared to do so.
Share
Tweet
