Retiral Benefits: A Safeguard for Employees and Their Families- Rajasthan High Court- retiral benefit should not be unjustly withheld

Rajasthan High Court Judgement - Sunita Devi vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8786/2022 - Decided on 15.10.2024-Jodhpur Bench), reiterates that retiral benefit should not be unjustly withheld, particularly when unrelated to official duties.

Introduction:

Retiral benefits, such as pensions and gratuities, are more than just monetary compensations for years of dedicated service. They are fundamental rights that ensure financial stability for employees and their families post-retirement. The courts have time and again emphasized that these benefits should not be withheld arbitrarily, especially in cases where no professional misconduct is involved. The concept that retiral benefits are not mere bounties but earned entitlements has been affirmed in numerous judicial precedents, highlighting the vital role these benefits play in protecting the livelihood of the employee and their dependents. In this note, we explore the principles behind retiral benefits, the philosophy supporting them, and key judicial decisions underscoring their importance.

Retiral benefits, such as pensions and gratuities, serve as essential components of an employee’s compensation for their dedicated service. They are recognized not only as a right of the employee but also as a safeguard for the employee’s family, ensuring financial security post-retirement. This principle was highlighted in the Rajasthan High Court case of Sunita Devi vs State of Rajasthan, where the court reiterated that retiral benefits are earned through service and should not be unjustly withheld, particularly when unrelated to official duties. The court emphasized that pensions are crucial for an individual’s and their family's sustenance, and any deprivation due to reasons not directly related to the employee’s professional conduct is unjustifiable.

Key Observations:

1. Pension as a Right: The court, in this case, held that pension and other retiral benefits are part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They provide essential financial support after retirement, and withholding them, especially due to pending criminal proceedings unrelated to professional duties, amounts to depriving an individual of their livelihood.
2. Impact on Family: The court recognized that these benefits are not solely for the employee but extend to their family, playing a crucial role in ensuring their financial well-being. Therefore, any action that deprives the family of these benefits must be carefully examined, particularly in cases where criminal charges are unrelated to official duties.
3. Judicial Precedents: The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the principle that retiral benefits cannot be withheld arbitrarily. In State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013), the Supreme Court held that pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the employee. Similarly, in H.R. Choudhary vs Central Administrative Tribunal (2017), it was held that withholding pensions merely because of ongoing criminal appeals, without any professional misconduct, is unjust.
4. Provisional Pension: As noted in Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, a provisional pension is mandatory even when departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. The judgment affirmed that this provision should be applied where the criminal proceedings are unrelated to professional misconduct.

The philosophy behind retiral benefits is rooted in providing financial security to the employee and their family post-retirement. These benefits are considered a rightful entitlement rather than a discretionary reward. Courts have consistently held that withholding such benefits, especially when there is no professional misconduct, violates an individual's rights. Therefore, actions taken by departments to withhold pensions or other retiral benefits must be scrutinized carefully to ensure they are not arbitrary or unjust.