Prolonged delay in pension disbursement breach of fundamental right: HC

Calling the prolonged deprivation of pension, a violation of fundamental right to live with dignity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab to submit an affidavit explaining why admissible benefits remain unpaid to an 83-year-old widow even though her husband died as far back as July 1991.

“In a welfare State like ours, the very object of granting pension and other retirement benefits is to secure to retirees and their families the means to live a life of dignity; accordingly, any delay in the disbursement of such benefits particularly when occasioned by the lapse of the State must be regarded as a violation of the beneficiaries’ fundamental rights,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted.  

The court observed that petitioner – an 83-year-old widow – was “running from pillar to post” seeking her rightful claim through admissible family pension. “There is no denial to the fact regarding the eligibility of the petitioner. However, an objection has been raised with regard to approaching this court after a period of 30 years,” the court observed.

Justice Brar added the petitioner’s claim for family pension could not be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. “This issue is no longer res integra…. Pension and other retirement benefits do not possess a gratuitous nature. Rather, such benefits accrue to a retiree by virtue of dedicated service rendered by him to his employer for a significant portion of his life,” the court observed.

Justice Brar observed the approach adopted by the respondents in depriving the petitioner of pension, despite her husband having rendered qualifying service, was wholly unjustified. Retirement benefits were often the sole source of sustenance for the family of a deceased employee.

Expanding the ambit, the court asserted the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India was not limited to mere animal like existence. It included the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term.

The bench also referred extensively on the Constitution Bench ruling in a case, where it was held that pension was “a deferred portion of compensation for service rendered”, and could not be subjected to administrative whim. The court further drew support from other judgments noting that family pension often constitutes the only means of sustenance, making any deprivation constitutionally impermissible.

Directing immediate accountability, the court asked the competent authority to file an affidavit explaining why “all admissible retirement and family pension benefits have not been released to the petitioner till date, particularly when her husband died in harness on June 20, 1991”. The petitioner was represented by counsel Gitanjali Chhabra, Muskan and Manik Khurana.