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

The applicants, comprising 64 retired employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council across two Original Applications, served in various posts such as Groundmen, Chowkidar, and Jamadar, and retired upon superannuation.

They were denied pensionary benefits, including pension and family pension.

The Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council is a registered society operating under the administrative control of the Government of J&K, with its employees' service conditions governed by Recruitment Rules that stipulated their posts were non-pensionable at the time of their appointment.

Despite this, the issue of granting pensionary benefits had been under government consideration since 2006, with the Finance Department conveying concurrence for a pension fund and the Sports Council Secretary recommending pensionary benefits in 2018, having accumulated funds internally.

Employees of other government corporations/boards receive pensionary benefits, and Sports Council employees in other states/union territories are also granted such benefits.

One applicant's prior writ petition led to contempt proceedings, during which the Government issued Order No. 32 JKYS&S of 2024 on 27.08.2024, rejecting the claim for pensionary benefits.

The applicants challenge this order as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether the Government Order No. 32 JKYS&S of 2024 dated 27.08.2024, rejecting the claim for pensionary benefits to employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, is illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory.

Whether the applicants, as retired employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, are entitled to pensionary and family pension benefits despite their service conditions being non-pensionable at the time of their appointment.

The court primarily applied the principle that pension is a statutory right, payable only when explicitly provided for by the statutory rules governing the employees' service conditions, as established in `State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754`.

It further relied on the precedent from `P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632`, which states that employees cannot seek modification of service conditions after having accepted them at the time of appointment.

Additionally, the court noted that parity in service benefits cannot be claimed solely based on similarity of duties in different organizations, as held in `State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121`.

The court recognized that matters pertaining to service conditions, pay scales, and pension schemes fall within the executive's policy domain and ordinarily do not warrant judicial interference unless demonstrably arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The court analyzed that the applicants accepted non-pensionable service conditions upon their appointment to the J&K Sports Council and continued in service for decades without challenge.

Consequently, based on the precedent from `P.U. Joshi`, they cannot demand alteration of these accepted conditions post-retirement.

The argument for parity with employees of other corporations and boards, whose services were initially pensionable in government departments before absorption, was dismissed, as the applicants were directly appointed to a non-pensionable post.

Relying on `State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia`, the court affirmed that mere similarity in duties does not automatically entitle employees of different organizations to identical service benefits.

The court highlighted that pension is a statutory right, and since the Recruitment Rules of the Sports Council did not provide for pension, and these rules were not challenged as unconstitutional or arbitrary, the applicants had no legal right to pension under existing rules.

However, acknowledging the ongoing governmental consideration and internal communications regarding a pension fund, the court determined that while current entitlement was lacking, the policy matter required reconsideration by the competent authority.

The court held that the applicants do not have a right to pensionary benefits under the existing non-pensionable service rules.

However, recognizing that the issue of granting pensionary benefits had been under active government consideration for several years, including the exchange of various communications and proposals for creating a pension fund, the court directed the respondents to place this matter before the competent authority for a final policy decision in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposed policy decision, leaving the competent authority to consider the matter independently.