Knowledge Pool

It is an accepted position now that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property. The Right to receive pension was recognized as right to property by the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar; (1971) 2 SCC 330.The following are the Land Mark judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regards to the right of pension and gratuity benefits: 

D.D. Tewari (Deceased) through LRs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2014 LLR 1121 (S.C.)

Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the employer/Government as already held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 that pension and gratuity have become valuable right of the employee and any culpable delay in the settlement of the pension and gratuity must be dealt with the penalty of interest at the current market rate from the due date of payment till the date of payment to the employee.

State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1223

This Court held that conditions of service can be altered unilaterally by the employer but it should be in conformity with legal and constitutional provisions.
It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim “sublato fundamento cadit opus” is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.

Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243

Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.

Shripati Tripathi versus State of U.P & others 2010(10) ADJ 331 (DB) (Para 19)

We may add here that after serving the qualifying period of service, the employee does not ordinarily have any other means of livelihood, when he needs them most, other than his dues. It is extremely unjust and harsh to allow a retired employee to wait to receive the dues, and to depend upon his friends, relatives and children. The right to receive retiral dues/ terminal dues is closely linked to his right of self-respect, and human dignity, which is included in right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-Operative Bank Vs. Secretary, Coimbatore District Central Co-Operative Bank

It is settled law that equals must be treated equally and unequal treatment to equals would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, it is equally well-established that unequals cannot be treated equally. Equal treatment to unequals would also be violative of ‘equal protection clause’ enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Therefore in absence of any statutory provision or regulation no one can stop the pension of a person.