Pension Rules Must Be Interpreted In Favour Of Employee When More Than One Interpretation Is Possible : Supreme Court'

When Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee, the Supreme Court observed in a recent Judgment.

In this case, the issue raised in the writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court was whether service rendered by the Writ Petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, should be counted for the purpose of pension. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to count the earlier period of service rendered by the writ petitioner with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to compute his total pensionable service and release his pension and retiral benefits including arrears of pension with interest @ 9% p.a. within a period of three months. Writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The State, through Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi, contended in appeal that the High Court had misconstrued Rule 25(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 It was contended that resignation entails forfeiture of past service with the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, for the purpose of pension. Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, who appeared for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment.

The Apex Court bench observed that the High Court judgment is based on a purposive interpretation of Rule 25(2) of the Rules  and that the interpretation given is a plausible interpretation.

While dismissing the SLP, the bench observed:

"Pension, is a life long benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints - financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee."

Regarding the contention that the Writ Petition was filed by after six years, the bench noted that the laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, 8 particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled.", the court added.

Case details

State of Rajasthan vs O P Gupta | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785 | SLP (Diary) 27824 OF 2020 | 19 September 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari

Headnotes

Pension - Pension, is a life long benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints - Financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee. (Para 27-28)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - The laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - Relief under Article 226 being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled.  (Para 26)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment