Pension & Other Retiral Benefit Rules Have To Be Interpreted Liberally: Meghalaya High Court

The observation came from Justice H. S. Thangkhiew:

"In the scheme of things, especially in matters of pension and grant of terminal benefits, it has to be kept in mind that, provisions or rules with regard to pension, which are beneficial in nature have to be interpreted liberally. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken Voluntary Retirement (in 2005), after serving the requisite number of years to entitle him to pension and other terminal benefits. As such, to give a interpretation that he is not entitled to DCRG, as the Notification amending the provision was issued only on 06.04.2015, cannot be taken to be a justifiable ground to deny the DCRG to the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on his contention that, the notification is an amendment which is more clarificatory in nature, and if the legislative intent was to exclude Voluntary Retirement, the same would have been made clear in the rules itself."

The petitioner who had served as a Headmaster of Rongrikimgre Deficit Upper Primary School, Baghmara, after rendering 25 years of service opted for Voluntary Retirement and was released from service by the Government in 2005. The only grievance in the instant writ petition is that the retirement dues under the Meghalaya Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1985 (DCRG) has not been released to the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the benefit of the DCRG cannot be denied to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, as he had voluntarily retired and had not resigned from service. It is further submitted that the ground of denial of DCRG on the basis of Notification dated 06.04.2015, is not tenable, inasmuch as, it is but an amendment by which the entitlement of DCRG under the rules has been made more explicit.

Government advocate submitted that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered inasmuch as, the petitioner had retired voluntarily in 2005, whereas, the Notification which includes employees who retired voluntarily, was made effective only from the date of the said Notification. Learned GA has produced a communication dated 06.07.2022, indicating this fact, and submits that in view of this situation DCRG was not released to the petitioner.

Court noted that Pension and other terminal benefits is a vested right for payment of past services rendered by the employee. The only reason for denial of the DCRG to the petitioner by the respondents, is on the ground that it was only after the Notification dated 06.04.2015, was issued amending the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, that employees who have retired voluntarily have been considered to be eligible to be granted DCRG, and as the petitioner had retired before the said amendment, he would not be entitled to DCRG.

Accordingly, this writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the respondents consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of DCRG within 6 weeks.