Pradeep RangraoNalawade Vs. Poona College of Pharmacy and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (03 Jul 2023)

Pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction, benefit should not be denied to an employee on mere technicalities

MANU/MH/2385/2023

Service

The Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to condone a gap in his service, which in turn entitles him to retirement benefits. He further seeks quashing of an Order passed by the 3rd Respondent rejecting his representation for condoning the gap in service as claimed by Respondents.

The Petitioner continued to serve even during the technical breaks and for which he was even paid salary for that period. As long as other essential conditions of a contract are fulfilled, the promise, whether express or implied, is enforceable by law. In the present case, there is acceptance of the proposal in terms of accepting appointment and payment of lawful consideration as salary supported by performance of contract. Hence, the act of the Petitioner's continued service in consideration of payment of salary as an implied contract. Once existence of the contract is established, whether it is reduced into writing or not is inconsequential to the consequences that follow.

There is no gap in service at all, considering that the contract of service continued to run. The 3rd Respondent, in its enthusiasm to deny an employee his rightful dues, seems to have confused a 'gap in appointment letters' to mean 'a gap in service'. There was no gap in service to justify refusal of pension benefits to the Petitioner.

Pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the government. The right of pension is a valuable right vested in a government servant. It is a social welfare measure as a post retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of an employee. Pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to the Rules, but the very basis for grant of pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired government employee to live with dignity in the winter of his life and thus such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities.

The genuine claim of the Petitioner was rejected purely on an incorrect interpretation of law, relying on a provision which is wholly inapplicable. The Respondents are directed to disburse the amount of pension to the Petitioner, computed as per Rules, as having completed the period of qualifying service, without any gap in service. Petition allowed.

Tags : PENSION BENEFITS DIRECTION