Retirement Benefits Dispute: High Court Orders Payment Under Old Pension Scheme

 

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court addressed a dispute concerning the post-retirement benefits of a retired employee, Subhash Thakur, who served as a Laboratory Incharge at K.V.S. College in Madhubani, Bihar. The case, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 591 of 2021, involved Thakur's petition seeking directions to the respondents to grant and pay his rightful pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, considering his uninterrupted service since May 17, 1979. The central issue revolved around whether Thakur's past service before his regularization in 2012 should be counted towards his retiral benefits and which pension scheme should govern his entitlements.

Background

Subhash Thakur was initially appointed as a Laboratory Incharge on May 17, 1979, by the governing body of K.V.S. College. In December 1980, the college became a constituent college, and subsequently, the State Government sanctioned 47 posts, including the post of Laboratory Incharge of Physics, held by Thakur.

The services of Thakur and others were regularized, and salary payments began, but were later halted. This led to legal challenges, including C.W.J.C. No. 6145 of 1996, which directed the University to fill the sanctioned posts in a regular manner within six months, providing age relaxation to the existing employees.

However, the University delayed the appointment process, prompting another writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 3377 of 2002. The court directed the University to complete the selection process within four months, with due relaxation of age to the employees. Ultimately, the University constituted a selection committee, and Thakur was appointed as a non-teaching Class-III employee on August 11, 2012. He retired on January 31, 2016.

Petitioner's Arguments

Thakur's counsel argued that he was entitled to post-retiral benefits, considering his long and continuous service since 1979. It was contended that an employee's pension scheme is determined at the time of their initial appointment. Counsel cited several cases, including Braj Kishore Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others and Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, to support the claim that past services should be considered for retiral benefits.

Respondent's Arguments

The State's counsel argued that Thakur's appointment on a substantive basis occurred on August 11, 2012, after the implementation of the New Contributory Pension Scheme on September 1, 2005. They contended that Thakur, having been appointed after this date, was governed by the new scheme and thus, was only entitled to gratuity and leave encashment, not pension and general provident fund benefits.

Court's Observations and Decision

The Patna High Court, after considering the facts and arguments, focused on whether the services rendered by Thakur before his 2012 appointment/absorption could be counted for retiral benefits and under which scheme. The court acknowledged Thakur's initial appointment in 1979, the subsequent regularization of his services, and the challenges in the appointment process.

The court relied on previous judgments, including Md. Kayumuddin Ansari & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others, which established that old vacancies are governed by old rules, and new rules cannot apply retroactively. It also referenced Rajendra Kamti and another Vs. Lalit Narayan Mishra University and others, which dealt with the qualifying service for pension under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

The High Court ruled in favor of Thakur, directing the respondents to grant him retiral benefits under the Old Pension Scheme. The court emphasized that Thakur's past services should be considered, particularly from the date when the post of Laboratory Incharge (Physics) was sanctioned by the State Government on March 9, 1990. It reasoned that the delay in Thakur's regular appointment should not prejudice his right to pensionary benefits.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court's decision in Subhash Thakur's case reaffirms the principle that an employee's entitlement to pension is a significant right that cannot be denied due to administrative delays. The ruling clarifies that past services rendered before regularization can be counted for pensionary benefits, especially when the initial appointment was valid and the delay in regularization was not attributable to the employee. This judgment provides important legal precedent for similar cases involving the determination of retiral benefits in situations with delayed regularization of service.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTkxIzIwMjEjMSNO-auufmj6GaKU=