In a significant legal case concerning employment and pension rights, the court’s meticulous analysis of the Pension Rules led to a pivotal judgment. This decision not only affects the parties involved but sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future. Let’s delve deeper into the court’s interpretation and its implications on employee entitlements and rights.
Facts
- Single Bench allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 5879 of 2009, counting service for pension benefits.
- High Court directed compliance within 15 days in Contempt Petition No 265 of 2018.
- Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No 443 of 2018, upholding pensionable service of the Respondent.
- Respondent initially appointed as Assistant Charge Man in Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board.
- Service rendered by Respondent prior to resignation from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation considered for pension purposes.
- Factual findings of Division Bench and Single Bench upheld the resignation with proper permission for another appointment.
- The Respondent resigned from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to take up appointment as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries) in the Department of Industries in the State of Rajasthan.
- Respondent joined service in the Department of Industries on April 16, 1977.
- Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to count earlier period of service rendered by the Respondent with Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to compute total pensionable service.
- Pursuant to an advertisement by RPSC in June 1976, Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Director (Agro-Industries).
- Respondent’s services were transferred to Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation on the same pay scale.
- Respondent was appointed as Assistant Director (Agro-Industries) by an order dated April 7, 1977.
- Appeal filed by Petitioner-State against the judgment and order dated May 5, 2017 before the Division Bench.
- Copy of judgment and order served on Petitioners on May 15, 2017.
- Petitioners did not comply with the Judgment and order according to the Respondent.
Also Read: Ex post facto Environmental Clearance in Bio-Medical Waste Case
Arguments
- Dr. Singhvi argued that the appointment was a fresh appointment where the past service was inconsequential.
- Courts should lean towards the interpretation of financial rules like Pension Rules that favor the employee when there are multiple interpretations possible.
- Dr. Singhvi pointed out that the Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent after six years, and the Respondent was appointed to a higher post in the Industry Department, making past employment inconsequential.
- There was no proof of prior permission before resignation from Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, and according to service jurisprudence, resignation results in the cessation from service and forfeiture of past service.
Also Read: Land Dispute Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused in cases of gross delay by the petitioner.
- Denial of pension is considered a continuing wrong.
- Arbitrariness violates the right to equality under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
- Past service is not forfeited upon resignation if proper permission was obtained.
- The appointment of the Respondent was made through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) to a Government post.
- Financial constraints can be a barrier for a retired employee in approaching the Court.
- Power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is discretionary
- This Court is not bound to set aside an order under Article 136 even if it was not in conformity with law
- Article 136 is a residual provision enabling this Court to interfere with judgments and orders of any Court or Tribunal in India at its discretion
- The High Court made a just decision based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules.
- The interpretation given by the High Court to Rule 25(2) of the Rules is considered plausible.
- No grounds were found to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Appeal Provisions in Admiralty and Commercial Court Cases
Decision
- The Special Leave Petition has been dismissed.
Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. O.P. GUPTA (2022 INSC 980)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-016734-016734 / 2022
