Karnataka high court-ordered payment of terminal benefits to a retired employee and remarked “pension is neither a bounty, charity or a gratuitous payment but an indefeasible right of an employee in terms of the Rules.”
Facts
The petitioner was working as a storekeeper for the respondent i.e. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) when his services were terminated without an enquiry on allegation of theft. The petitioner challenged the termination in the high court which quashed the wrongful termination and directed the respondent to hold a fresh enquiry by order dated 20 January 2000 but the petitioner retired on 30 June 1999 upon reaching the age of superannuation. Without holding a fresh enquiry the respondents withheld the entire pension and terminal benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner filed multiple pleas in the high court after which the respondent dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and released the pension but even after the order of the high court the KPTCL withheld petitioner’s terminal benefits due to which the present writ petition was filed by the 77-year-old retired employee.
Petitioner’s contention
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no grounds for withholding his client’s terminal benefits since the petitioner was exonerated from all charges and the respondent themselves dropped all the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that the petitioner was 77 years old with adverse health and family conditions and pleaded for release for his due amount in the name of equity and justice.
Respondent’s reply
The respondent tried to justify their position pleaded that they will release the number of terminal benefits to the petitioner once they get assent from the corporate office and to get clarifications on whether they can write off material which was stolen in 1998.
Court’s decision
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the respondent failed to comply with this court’s orders multiple times in the previous petition depriving the petitioner his pension and terminal benefits time and again. The court also noted that disciplinary proceedings were dropped against the petitioner and he was also acquitted by the court on any allegations of theft, holding that the petitioner was well within his legitimate rights to claim the pension and other benefits. The court rapped the respondent for procrastinating and delaying the payment of terminal benefits without any grounds.
The court recognized KPTLC as a state under article 12 of the constitution and issued the writ of mandamus against payment of terminal benefits to the petitioner. The court regarding pension as a right stated that “pension payable to its employees upon superannuation is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and it constitutes a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” And further remarked, “pension is neither a bounty, charity or a gratuitous payment but an indefeasible right of an employee in terms of the Rules.”
The court allowed the petition ordering the KPLTC to pay terminal benefits to the petitioner with an interest of 9% p.a. within two weeks and also directed them to pay additional Rs.50000 as cost.
