Pension is a Statutory Right and its Withholding Constitutes a Continuing Cause of Action

The applicant, a former employee of the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, was among several petitioners in SWP No. 1507/2010 who challenged a notification forcing compulsory retirement.

The High Court stayed that notification on 09.11.2010, allowing the applicant to continue in service.

The applicant eventually superannuated on 30.06.2021.

Despite inter-departmental communications acknowledging his retention and requests for administrative sanction to finalize his pensionary benefits (DCRG, commutation, and monthly pension), the respondents failed to release the same, leaving the applicant’s case entangled in administrative proceedings.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the immediate release of all pensionary benefits with 12% interest.

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to finalize and release the pensionary benefits of an employee retained in service beyond an intended retirement date via court orders.

2. Whether the delay in granting administrative sanction for the applicant's service period constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Tribunal reaffirmed that pension is a statutory right governed by rules rather than the discretion of authorities, earned through long and unblemished service.

It relied on D. S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India and Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1999 SC 437) to establish the fundamental nature of pensionary rights.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Shri M. L. Patil (Dead) v. The State of Goa (Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022), which holds that claims for pensionary benefits constitute a "continuing cause of action" and are not barred by limitation.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' own communications (dated 29.12.2021, 05.04.2022, and 27.04.2022) admitted the applicant was retained in service and that his case should be finalized on the analogy of previous similar cases.

The court reasoned that since the applicant performed his duties and received a salary until his superannuation in 2021, the lack of formal administrative sanction for the retention period should not be used as a tool for deprivation.

By applying the M.L. Patil precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that the applicant's right to pension is a statutory entitlement that cannot be withheld due to internal administrative "red tape" or inter-departmental delays.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to treat the application as a formal representation. The respondents are ordered to consider and decide the applicant’s case in light of the cited judicial pronouncements and his eligibility, ensuring the issuance of a speaking and reasoned order within eight weeks.