Service Law:
Pension – Pensionary benefit granted to Casual labour Roll (CLR) workers after their absorption on Seasonal labour Roll (SLR) posts by different Government Orders – Claim by the appellant for counting the period of his service rendered as CLR worker for pensionary benefits – Denied by State Government on the ground that the benefit could not be granted as he was not absorbed directly from CLR Service but was regularised by appointment through regular employment process – The view of State Government was affirmed in Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Pension is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement – Pensionary provisions must be given liberal construction – The appellant is being deprived of the maximum pensionable service which could be permissible to him if his period of CLR service is recognized as qualifying service – There is no reason to deny the same to the appellant when other CLR workers who have rendered lesser service than the appellant, have got such benefit – Therefore, the benefit of the service rendered as a CLR worker would be liable to be counted for determining the pensionary benefits to the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Pension is succour for post-retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee. The pensionary provisions must be given a liberal construction as a social welfare measure. This does not imply that something can be given contrary to rules, but the very basis for grant of such pension must be kept in mind, i.e., to facilitate a retired Government employee to live with dignity in his winter of life and, thus, such benefit should not be unreasonably denied to an employee, more so on technicalities. [Paras 1 and 19][994-B; 1000-A-B]
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC
305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 630: [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 582; Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 330 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 634 – relied on.
2. To say that the appellant would be denied the benefit of the period spent as CLR worker for his pensionary benefit would be to treat his case as inferior one to the case of other CLR workers, who never went through a system of recruitment for regularisation but were regularised in the Fisheries Department to provide better working conditions and monetary benefits to the employees. It cannot be said that a regularly recruited person like the appellant should not get the benefit which the other people who were CLR workers would get, having spent more than 7 years in that capacity. [Para 21][1000-D-F]
3. Had the respondents not issued the G.O.s, no doubt the appellant would have no claim. The claim of the appellant arises from the G.O.s, which are beneficial efforts for the CLR workers to improve the conditions of working along with monetary benefits. The appellant did work for the aforesaid long period of time as a CLR worker and should, thus, be entitled to the same on parity vis-à-vis other CLR workers. The appellant was at serial No.2 in the aforementioned list and would have been so absorbed when 29 posts were created. In fact, only 27 posts out of these were filled in. It is thus not even a case where no post existed or that it would affect anybody else, or that the Government would be compelled to create a post for the appellant. In fact, in terms of the G.O. dated 21.8.2006 an equalisation has been given of
200 days of work as a CLR worker to one year’s regular service for the purposes of pension. While one would commend such effort by the State Government, it would be very unreasonable to deny this to the appellant in view of the facts of the case. [Para 22][1000-G-H; 1001-A-B]
4. The appellant is being deprived of the maximum pensionable service which would be permissible to him if his period of CLR service is recognised as qualifying service and there is no reason to deny the same to him when other CLR workers have got this benefit at the time of their absorption and subsequent regularisation as SLR workers and who would have, by virtue of joining at a later point of time, rendered less service. Rule 13 of the Service Rules would possibly come to the aid of the rationale the Court is seeking to adopt as on absorption in the establishment, such persons are given the benefit of counting
50 per cent of their earlier work service prior to absorption for the purposes of pension. [Para 23][1001-C-D]
5. Thus, the appellant is entitled to succeed in the present appeal and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The rejection of the recommendation of the Fisheries Department, respondent No. 2, by respondent No. 1 was consequently improper and unsustainable. The benefit of the service rendered as a CLR worker would, thus, be liable to be counted for determining the pensionary benefits of the appellant at par with other CLR workers and the pension be accordingly calculated. [Para 24][1001-E-F]
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.