Pension is a legal right, not a bounty, requiring prompt release despite administrative or procedural lapses.

The applicants are the legal heirs (widow and children) of Late HC Mohd Yousuf Bhat, who superannuated on December 31, 2020, and subsequently passed away on February 20, 2023

Despite his retirement and death, the respondents withheld family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits

A discrepancy existed regarding the deceased’s Date of Birth (DOB); while service records allegedly showed 01.01.1967, the actual DOB was 01.01.1961

To resolve the impasse, the applicants submitted affidavits to the Commandant, 23rd IR Battalion, accepting the earlier DOB of 01.01.1961

The Accountant General’s office contended that they had not received the necessary communication from the police department to process the claims

1. Whether the withholding of pensionary and retiral benefits of the deceased employee was illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law

2. Whether the administrative delay and procedural discrepancies regarding the Date of Birth justified the denial of benefits to the legal heirs on humanitarian and legal grounds

The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that pension and pensionary benefits are not a "bounty" or a matter of grace but are a hard-earned right of an employee

This doctrine was derived from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330

The Court further relied on State of Kerala v. M Padamana Nyer AIR 1985 SC 356 and Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. & anr. (1999) to emphasize that administrative lapses or procedural delays cannot deprive a family of their rightful subsistence

The Tribunal observed that any further delay in releasing the benefits would be "unfair and inhuman," particularly as the family had been suffering since the employee’s death in 2023

It noted that the primary hurdle—the DOB discrepancy—had been removed because the applicants voluntarily submitted affidavits accepting the 01.01.1961 date

The Court criticized the "procedural wrangles" and the lack of coordination between the 23rd IR Battalion and the Accountant General’s office, noting that such administrative lapses should not prejudice the applicants

By applying the Deokinandan Prasad principle, the Tribunal determined that the right to pension is a property right under the law, and the respondents were under a legal obligation to process the PPOs (Pension Payment Orders) expeditiously once the DOB was clarified

The Court specifically ordered the Commandant, 23rd IR Bn., Lethpora, and the Accountant General’s office to expedite the process and issue the necessary PPOs based on the actual DOB of 01.01.1961

The matter was disposed of with instructions to the respondents' counsel to ensure immediate compliance to alleviate the hardship faced by the legal heirs