Saligram Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.—No one appears for the petitioner. Perused the records.

Petitioner, who professes to be a journalist since 12.8.2006 to 1.2.1986, claims pension from the State Government under Bihar Patrakar Pension Yojna. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked as a journalist for local Hindi daily "Pradeep", which undisputedly is not a State Organisation. With reference to the advertisement for payment of pension to journalists, as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 petitioner applied. He stated that pursuant thereto he was also given a cheque of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) at some time but thereafter he did not get any response.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that though the Government had intended to implement such a Pension Scheme but as no statutory rule or guidelines had been framed, the Scheme remains to be implemented. That being so, the petitioner had no enforceable right till such rule is framed.

Having considered the matter, in my view, it is well established that right to receive pension is a right arising primarily out of contractual obligation, State may grant payment which is an ex gratia payment on other consideration as well like Old Age Pension and Freedom Fighter Pension.

Here petitioner was not in employment of the State Government. State Government was under no obligation even though it is welfare State to make payment of any such pension. Petitioner worked for a private organization and if law permits him liable to receive pension would be from the said organisation. Till formal statutory rules binding on the Government are made they are not enforceable, for it is well settled that no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued if there is no statutorily enforceable right. There being no such statutorily enforceable right, no writ can be issued. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed as such.