HC raps Punjab for ‘gross violation of law’ in denying pension, imposes Rs 50,000 costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the State of Punjab for indefensibly withholding a retired employee’s pensionary benefits in “gross violation of law” before imposing Rs 50,000 costs. The direction came as the Bench condemned the State “in the strictest terms” for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the retired Divisional Engineer for an alleged lapse that took place 14 years back.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar made it clear that pensions and other retirement benefits ensured that the retired employees lived with dignity, and any State-caused delay in their payment violated their fundamental rights.

“The valuable time of this court has been unnecessarily consumed in adjudicating the present avoidable litigation, which the petitioner was constrained to initiate on account of the conduct of the respondents in gross violation of law. The proceedings are wholly contrary to the fundamental objectives of the Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab. Since the petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the respondents are directed to pay costs of Rs 50,000, the same to be disbursed by the respondent to the petitioner within 30 days,” Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench ruled that the chargesheet issued on April 28 — more than a year after the petitioner’s superannuation on February 29, 2024 — violated the explicit rule that “precisely forbids initiating disciplinary proceedings after an employee has retired, if the matter pertains to an event that happened over four years before the date of initiating the proceedings.”

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that impugned chargesheet was issued alleging negligence in the execution of Optimum Utilisation of Vacant Government Land (OUVGL) scheme. Referring to the binding nature of retirement entitlements, Justice Brar observed: “Pension and other retiral benefits do not possess a gratuitous nature. Rather, such benefits accrue to the retiree by virtue of dedicated service rendered by him to his employer for a significant portion of his life.”

Admonishing the State for its conduct, Justice Brar added: “The approach adopted by the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the well-deserved retiral benefits accrued to him, in view of the service rendered by him, ought to be condemned in the strictest terms. Oftentimes, retiral benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has retired. The retired employees and their kin not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival.”

Linking the delay to a constitutional breach, the court noted: “The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term.”

Pointing at the welfare State’s responsibility, Justice Brar added: “In a welfare State like ours, the very object of granting pension and other retiral benefits is to secure retirees and their families with the means to live a life of dignity; accordingly, any delay in the disbursement of such benefits particularly when occasioned by the omission or lapse of the State or its instrumentalities must be regarded as a violation of the beneficiaries’ fundamental rights.”