Welfare pension provisions can't be defeated by illiteracy, unawareness of employees: High Court to Punjab

Holding that welfare pension provisions cannot be defeated by the illiteracy or unawareness of employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed grant of pension to an employee who served for more than 43 years but was denied benefits only because she never exercised an option under the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted the petitioner’s predicament was not solitary, while making it clear that department’s failure to inform not-so-high ranking employees of a one-time option could not be used to deprive them of lifelong social security. The court recorded: “The petitioner, an uneducated and illiterate Class IV employee… cannot be made to suffer merely because she did not formally exercise the option prescribed therein.”

The matter was placed before Justice Brar after petitioner Chandro Devi moved the high court against the State of Punjab and other respondents contending that she superannuated in March 2024 after “43 years, five months and 26 days of continuous, satisfactory, and unblemished service”. She discovered near retirement that she had been denied pensionary benefits only because she did not opt for the scheme within the stipulated period back in 1994.

Soon after her retirement, she submitted a detailed representation to the respondent authorities, requesting the grant of pension, expressly stating her readiness and willingness to refund the employer's share of the contributory provident fund contribution.

Justice Brar asserted her plight was not an isolated one and the government acknowledged the problem’s widespread nature. Referring to an official meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on October 31, 2011, the court recorded that it was “proposed to grant a fresh opportunity to employees who had not opted for the pension scheme earlier.” A letter was issued, but it never translated into an amendment. A subsequent communication dated March 1, 2012, clarified that no action could be taken without formally amending the rules.

“The petitioner, an uneducated and illiterate Class IV employee, rendered over 43 years of service. Owing to her lack of awareness about the 1994 Rules, she was unable to exercise the requisite option. There is nothing on record to indicate that the department concerned obtained her acknowledgment of the relevant instructions. This Court is of the considered view that the department was under an obligation to ensure that such employees were duly informed and provided necessary assistance in this regard,” Justice Brar asserted.

The court added that 1994 Rules “being a piece of welfare legislation” were required to be construed liberally and “in a manner that advances the interest of the employees”. Justice Brar added the petitioner would refund the employer’s CPF share. The authorities, in turn, would accept her option and release monthly pension and consequential benefits within three months of receiving the certified order.

 Why is the judgment important?

The ruling reaffirms that lapses tied to illiteracy, lack of awareness or failure of departmental communication cannot permanently shut the door on pension rights under a welfare scheme. By stressing that the 1994 Rules “must be construed liberally” and by permitting a fresh exercise of option more than three decades later, the court has made it clear that access to pension — a continuing social security benefit — cannot hinge solely on a one-time window that many employees were never effectively informed about.