Pension and retiral dues cannot be withheld solely due to conflicting dates of birth in service and identity records.

The applicant, widow of Late Shri Ramdeen, sought release of her deceased husband’s pensionary and other retiral dues, family pension, and interest for delayed payment.

Ramdeen retired from service on 30 April 2020, but his pension papers were not settled during his lifetime because the date of birth in his service records differed from that recorded in his Aadhaar and PAN documents.

The respondents subsequently released ₹19,06,616 towards gratuity, commuted value of pension, and pension arrears with effect from 1 May 2020 on 9 June 2022, pursuant to the Tribunal’s interim directions.

Leave encashment remained under consideration, while the respondents stated that the applicant had not submitted her husband’s death certificate through the SPARSH portal.

The applicant asserted that she had uploaded the death certificate on 16 December 2022.

Whether pension and other retiral dues could be withheld merely because the date of birth in the service records differed from that recorded in the employee’s Aadhaar and PAN documents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension and other retiral dues.

Whether the respondents were required to process and release the deceased employee’s leave encashment and consider the applicant’s claim for family pension.

Pension and retiral benefits are earned benefits and are not a bounty; culpable or unjustified delay in their settlement may attract interest.

The Tribunal relied on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, and U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630, for the protective and beneficial character of pensionary rights.

It applied the principle in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, that delayed payment of pension and gratuity may warrant interest.

It also relied on Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 687, which recognised that retiral benefits should ordinarily be paid on retirement or soon thereafter and awarded interest for unjustified delay.

The date of birth recorded in the official service book was treated as the relevant and more authoritative basis for determining retirement and pensionary benefits, particularly where the employee had been retired on that basis.

The Tribunal found that Ramdeen had been retired by the respondents on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service records and that the same date had been used throughout his service for determining his retirement and related benefits.

Consequently, the discrepancy with Aadhaar and PAN records did not constitute a valid ground for withholding pension and retiral dues.

Since the dues were released only on 9 June 2022, approximately two years after retirement, and the delay was not attributable to the employee, the Tribunal held that interest was payable under the principles in Padmanabhan Nair and Vijay L. Mehrotra.

The Tribunal also directed payment of any outstanding leave encashment and required the respondents to consider the applicant’s family-pension claim in light of her asserted upload of the death certificate on the SPARSH portal.

The respondents were directed to pay the applicant simple interest at 6% per annum on the delayed arrears of pension and other retiral dues, calculated from the date on which the amounts fell due until actual payment.

They were further directed to ensure payment of leave encashment if it had not already been released, to consider the applicant’s claim for family pension, and to comply with the directions within three months from communication of the order.

No order as to costs was made.