Pension is a statutory right, payable only when relevant rules provide for it.

The applicants, retired employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council (J&K Sports Council) who served in various capacities such as Groundmen, Chowkidar, and Jamadar, sought pensionary benefits after their superannuation.

The J&K Sports Council is a registered society operating under the administrative control of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

The service conditions of its employees are governed by Recruitment Rules, which stipulate that the posts held by the applicants are non-pensionable.

The issue of granting pensionary benefits to J&K Sports Council employees had been under government consideration, with the Finance Department conveying concurrence in 2006 for a pension fund creation.

Subsequently, the Secretary of the J&K Sports Council recommended pension and family pension benefits in a communication dated March 14, 2018, stating that a pension fund had been established through internal resources.

However, the Government issued Order No. 32 JKYS&S of 2024 on August 27, 2024, rejecting the employees’ claim for pensionary benefits.

The applicants challenged this order, arguing discrimination compared to employees of other government corporations and boards (like Khadi and Village Industries Board and Handicrafts Corporation) and sports councils in other states, who receive pensionary benefits.

Whether the Government Order No.32 JKYS&S of 2024 dated 27.08.2024, rejecting pensionary benefits to the applicants, is illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory.

Whether the applicants, as employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, are entitled to pensionary benefits, including family pension, on the same pattern as employees of other government boards/corporations or sports councils in other states, despite their service conditions being non-pensionable at the time of appointment.

Pension is a statutory right, payable only when explicitly provided for under relevant statutory rules governing service conditions.

Employees cannot seek modification of service conditions after accepting them at the time of appointment.

Parity in service benefits cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity of duties.

Determination of pay scales, pension, and other service benefits falls within the domain of the executive and expert bodies, and courts generally do not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Administrative communications or proposals do not create enforceable rights unless a formal order is issued per Article 166 of the Constitution.

The court found that the applicants were appointed under the J&K Sports Council's Recruitment Rules, which clearly stipulated non-pensionable posts, and they accepted these conditions without challenge for decades.

Applying the precedent in *State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal*, the Tribunal emphasized that pension is a statutory right and unavailable if not provided by rules.

Citing *P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General*, it reasoned that having accepted the non-pensionable terms, the applicants could not seek alteration after retirement.

The claim of parity with employees of other corporations or sports councils in different states was dismissed based on *State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia*, which holds that mere similarity of duties does not automatically grant similar benefits, especially when different organizations have distinct rules and financial structures.

The Tribunal also acknowledged that policy decisions regarding service benefits are primarily executive functions, and it would typically not intervene unless constitutional provisions are violated, which the applicants failed to demonstrate regarding their service rules.

While acknowledging government communications about creating a pension fund, the Tribunal confirmed these do not create enforceable rights without a formal order.

The Original Applications were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the matter regarding grant of pensionary benefits to the J&K Sports Council employees before the competent authority and take a final policy decision in accordance with law within four months from the receipt of the order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it has not opined on the merits of the proposed policy decision, leaving it to the competent authority to consider the matter independently.

No order was made as to costs.