State of Jharkhand vs Indrawati Devi

Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—I.A. No. 2205 of 2011

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 2205 of 2011 filed for condonation of delay in filing the present review petition stands allowed.

Civil Review No. 66 of 2011

Payment of death-cum-retiral dues to the widow has been pleaded as a "liability" upon the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel for the applicant-State of Jharkhand submits that the husband of writ petitioner namely, Indrawati Devi was posted within Patna Division in the year, 1984, when he died in harness and thus, it is the liability of the State of Bihar to pay death-cum-retiral dues to his widow.

The controversy whether the post retiral benefits which includes pension, family pension, gratuity etc. are paid to an employee in reward to his services rendered or it is given as bounty was settled long back in "Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others" (1971) 2 SCC 330 wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that right of a person to receive pension is akin to right to property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. In "D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of India" (1983) 1 SCC 305, a Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under,

"From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch......."

The husband of the writ petitioner was admittedly posted as Executive Engineer at Deoghar however, the State of Jharkhand has sought to deny its responsibility with a dash of twist pleading that he was posted within Patna Division and thus, it would not be the liability of State of Jharkhand to pay retiral benefits to the writ petitioner. This Court notices the fact that in several other cases even if the deceased employee was not posted within the jurisdiction of newly created State of Jharkhand, considering the statutory obligation of the employer to pay pension and post retiral benefits, directed the State of Jharkhand to pay post retiral dues, subject to adjustment of the amount between the States. Order dated 10.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5120 of 2002 whereby, the direction was issued to the State of Jharkhand to pay death-cum-retiral benefits to the applicant has not been complied by the State of Jharkhand by filing the present review petition.

I am of the opinion that the State of Jharkhand has completely abdicated its duty to pay the post retiral benefits to its employee. The liability, if any comes to the State of Jharkhand, it was always open to the State of Jharkhand to seek an adjustment of the said amount from the State of Bihar.

I find no merits in the review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand is directed to comply with order dated 10.07.2008 in W.P.(S) No. 5120 of 2002 passed by the Writ Court, forthwith.