Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992: rr. 39, 47(5)(i) and 49 – Invalid pension –Whether the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Pension Rules can be ignored for the purpose of consideration of invalid pension under r.39 of the Pension Rules – Respondent’s husband retired from service on the ground of mental incapacity and died soon thereafter – His net qualifying service for the benefits under the Pension Rules was 4 years 6 months and 29 days only – Respondent (widow of the employee) was paid gratuity as also the other terminal benefits – After 14 years of death of the employee, the respondent approached the Tribunal for fixation of pay for her husband in the revised scale with effect from 1.1.1996 till his superannuation and also for family pension benefits – Respondent never, however, prayed for invalid pension before the Tribunal – Yet, Tribunal ordered for invalid pension for the respondent’s husband, under r.39 – High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal – On appeal, held: Respondent was paid the service gratuity and she received the same, without any demur – She never raised any claim for invalid pension either at the time of retirement or even when she approached the Tribunal i.e. 14 years later – Nevertheless, the Tribunal went beyond the prayers in the O.A. and ordered for invalid pension and then following his death, ordered for family pension for the widow – In declaring such entitlement, High Court and the Tribunal ignored the qualifying service of 10 years as prescribed in the Pension Rules – Respondent’s husband having not served for 10 years was not entitled for regular pension – For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension.
Service Law: Pension – Invalid pension – Entitlement for – Pension is earned by stint of continuity and longevity of service and minimum qualifying service should, therefore, be understood as the requirement for invalid pension as well – Pension Rules can be harmoniously construed in this manner and in that event, there shall be no clash between different provisions in the said Rules – The condition of qualifying service prescribed in the Pension Rules must be satisfied to become eligible for invalid pension – For those with less than 10 years’ service, the Pension Rules provide for gratuity payment and therefore, for invalid pension, qualifying years of service, cannot be ignored – The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules – Service law – Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
Interpretation of statutes: Harmonious construction – Pension Rules – Construction of – When the question arises as to how certain provisions of the Pension Rules are to be understood, it is appropriate to read the provision in its context which would mean reading the statute as a whole – In other words, a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole – An interpretation which involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute should be avoided and effort should be made for harmonious construction – The provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them – Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The net qualifying service of respondent’s husband for the benefits under the Pension Rules was 4 years 6 months and 29 days only. For government servants not completing ten years qualifying service prescribed in Rule 47(5)(i) of the Pension Rules, the service gratuity is to be paid at a uniform rate of half month’s emolument for every completed six months period of service. Such gratuity benefit as also the other terminal benefits like GPF, unutilized Earned Leave, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), etc. were sanctioned and paid to the widow of the employee. Moreover, respondent was also appointed as a sweeper under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and she is in regular government service, since 12.6.2006. The gratuity and other benefits and the compassionate appointment was accepted by the respondent without raising any additional claim towards invalid pension for her deceased husband, who retired on 6.7.1996. Long after his death on 24.7.1996, the respondent approached the Tribunal to belatedly pray for firstly, fixation of pay for her husband in the revised scale and also to sanction family pension benefits for the applicant, following the death of the government employee along with all consequential and terminal benefits. The respondent never however prayed for invalid pension before the Tribunal. Yet, the Tribunal ordered for invalid pension for the respondent’s husband, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rule. When the Tribunal’s decision was challenged in the High Court, the State specifically contended that Rule 39 has to be read together with Rule 47 of the Pension Rules and the specified qualifying service must be satisfied even for claiming invalid pension. But the High Court without adverting to the specific contention raised by the appellants, dismissed the writ petition with a cryptic order observing that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and that the husband of the respondent is entitled to invalid pension under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. [Paras 14-17][480-D-H; 481-A-C]
2. An employee becomes entitled to pension by stint of his long service for the employer and, therefore, it should be seen as a reward for toiling hard and long for the employer. The Pension Rules provide for a qualifying service of 10 years for such entitlement. When the question arises as to how certain provisions of the Pension Rules are to be understood, it would be appropriate to read the provision in its context which would mean reading the statute as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. Pension is earned by stint of continuity and longevity of service and minimum qualifying service should therefore be understood as the requirement for invalid pension as well. [Para 20][481-G-H; 482-A-C]
Union of India and Another v. Bashirbhai R. Khiliji (2007) 6 SCC 16 : [2007] 6 SCR 1060 – relied on.
3. In a case like this, the need for compassion and the compliance of the norms has to be balanced. The allowable gratuity benefits were granted on account of the respondent’s husband and after he died, the widow was appointed (on 12.6.2006) in a government job under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Thus, the needed means of sustenance was provided to the deceased’s family. [Para 24][484-C-D]
4. The respondent’s husband had not served for ten years and was therefore, he disentitled for regular pension. For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. [Para 25][484-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.