Supreme Court of India
VEENA PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 18 November 2021
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 403
VEENA PANDEY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6953 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service law:
Pensionary benefits – Entitlement to, under the PensionScheme – On facts, employee opted for receiving 90% pensionduring his life time as provided under the Pension Scheme and onhis death, his widow-appellant entitled to receive in lump sum, anamount equal to 100 times his full monthly pension, in addition tofamily pension – On employee’s death on 12.01.11, appellant’s claimfor lump sum amount rejected on the ground that the provision wasabolished w.e.f 21.02.2011 and the 10% surrendered amount hadbeen refunded to all pensioners with interest – Writ petition by theappellant seeking disbursal of the pensionary benefits and quashingof the letter whereby she was communicated that no other paymentwas due – Writ petition dismissed by the Single Judge on the groundof lack of territorial jurisdiction – Said order upheld by the DivisionBench – On appeal, held: The Pension Scheme was framed as ameasure of social security for ensuring socio-economic justice forthe employees in the coal sector – Pension is the deferred portionof the compensation for rendering long years of service – In viewthereof, the sum due and payable under the Pension Scheme to bedisbursed to the appellant after adjusting the amount refundedearlier – Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 – Para 15(1)(b), Para15(2).
Retiral benefits – Pension – Nature of – Held: Pension is thedeferred portion of the compensation for rendering long years ofservice – It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee and isin the nature of property.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Pension as is well known, is the deferred portionof the compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a
403
A
B
CDE
F
G
H
Ahard-earned benefit accruing to an employee and has been heldto be in the nature of property. [Para 11][407-A-D]
1.2 The High Court did not consider her entitlement onmerit, but had dismissed both the Writ Petition and the LPA,citing want of territorial jurisdiction. The employment of theBappellant’s husband with the respondent employer is howevernot in dispute. Nevertheless, for over a decade, the widow of theemployee is forced to litigate to secure the pension benefits. Inthe peculiar circumstances of the instant case, withoutcommenting on the legality of the decision to discontinue thesaid provision in the pension scheme by the employer, as theCpensioner was not alive on the date of discontinuance, it is orderedthat the sum due and payable under the Pension scheme becomputed and be disbursed to the appellant. The amount earlierrefunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during theremittance process. [Para 12, 13][407-B-E]DAll India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association &ors v. Union of India & Ors, (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 664;State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra KumarSrivastava and Another (2013) 12 SCC 210 – reliedon.
E
Case Law Reference
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6953 ofF2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.701 of 2017 in CivilWrit Jurisdiction Case No. 9837 of 2014.
Santosh Kumar, Madhurendra Sharma, Rajiv Ranjan Mishra,GYadav Narender Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Pranay Ranjan,Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ayush Puri, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul,Ms. Vaishali Verma, Ashwarya Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Alok K. Singh, H
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Riju Raj Singh Jamwal, Dipankar Singh,Ms. Prema Priyadarshi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of claims for pensionary benefitsunder the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred toas the ‘Pension Scheme, 1998’ for short). The appellant’s husbandRamashankar Pandey rendered service in the South Eastern Coal FieldsLtd., Bilaspur, after being transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd in1999. The employee retired on 31.05.2004 as Chief Personnel Managerat Bilaspur and later settled in Bhojpur, Bihar with his family. He optedfor receiving 90% pension during his life time as provided under para15 1(b) of the Pension Scheme, 1998 effective from 31.03.1998. Sincethe employee opted to receive 90% of the total admissible amount of thepension during his lifetime, on his death on 12.01.2011, the widow of thepensioner became entitled to receive in lump sum, an amount equal to100 times his full monthly pension, in addition to family pension. Therecord shows that Rs.7091/- p.m. was sanctioned to the employee asBasic Pension under the Pension Scheme, 1998 w.e.f 01.06.2004 and10% of his Basic Pension i.e Rs. 788/- p.m. was deposited with thedepartment.
3. Following the employee’s death on 12.01.2011, as per the PensionScheme, 1998 the widow of the pensioner made claim for a sumequivalent to 100 times the full monthly pension of her husband and videletter dated 30.09.2012, she applied for payment of the lump sum amountin pursuance of para 15(1)(b) read with para 15(2) of the PensionScheme, 1998.
4. The appellant’s representation was however rejected. In theletter dated 22.01.2013 of the Regional Commissioner of the Coal MinesProvident Fund Organization (‘CMPFO’ for short) it was stated that thepensioner had opted for payment of 90% pension under para 15 (1)(b)of the Pension Scheme, 1998, but the aforesaid provision was abolishedw.e.f 21.02.2011. It was also intimated that the 10% surrendered amounthad been refunded to all pensioners with interest under the order dated30.01.2012 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A5. The appellant was refunded the surrendered amount of 10%with interest (Rs. 36,938/-) along with widow pension arrears (Rs.12,351/-), in total Rs. 49,289/-, whereas she claimed a higher sum under thenow abolished provisions of the Pension Scheme.
6. Aggrieved by the above stand of the employer, the appellantBmoved the High Court of Patna for disbursal of the pensionary benefitsand also to quash the letter dated 22.01.2013 of the RegionalCommissioner, CMPFO whereunder, it had been communicated that, noother payment is due to the appellant. Her C.W.J.C No.9837/2014 washowever dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge onthe ground that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdictionCof the High Court of Patna. This order was affirmed by the DivisionBench by dismissal of the appellant’s LPA No.701/2017 with similarobservation that the services rendered by the pensioner were outsidethe territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and hence the writpetition filed by the widow of the pensioner was not maintainable. TheseDorders of the High Court are impugned in this Appeal.
7. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.Also heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, the learned ASG appearing for therespondents.
8. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, points out from the additionalEcounter affidavit of respondent no. 6 that pursuant to the administrativeorder dated 04.03.2011 of the Commissioner, CMPFO, the appellant’scase was settled on 18.04.2011 and 10% surrendered value of monthlypension along with applicable interest thereon was refunded.
9. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellantFwould however contend that the lumpsum (100 times of full monthlypension) became payable to the widow on the death of her husband,who, subsequent to his retirement, had opted for the same under thePension Scheme. The counsel further submits that the appellant as thewidow of the employee is suffering as she has been non suited by theGcourt on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
10. It is necessary to note that the Coal Mines Pension Scheme,1998 was framed as a measure of social security for ensuring socio-economic justice for the employees in the coal sector under the powersconferred by Section 3-E of the Coal Mines Provident Fund andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.H
11. Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion of thecompensation[1] for rendering long years of service. It is a hard-earnedbenefit accruing to an employee and has been held to be in the nature ofproperty by this Court, in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. JitendraKumar Srivastava and Another[2].
12. While considering the appellant’s case, the High Court did nothowever consider her entitlement on merit, but had dismissed both theWrit Petition and the LPA, citing want of territorial jurisdiction. Theemployment of the appellant’s husband with the respondent employer ishowever not in dispute. Nevertheless, for over a decade, the widow ofthe employee is forced to litigate to secure the pension benefits.
13. In the above peculiar circumstances of this case, withoutcommenting on the legality of the decision to discontinue the said provisionin the pension scheme by the employer, as the pensioner was not aliveon the date of discontinuance, we consider it appropriate to passnecessary orders in her favor in this proceeding itself. Resultantly, thesum due and payable under the Pension scheme be computed and thesame is ordered to be disbursed to the appellant. The amount earlierrefunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during the remittanceprocess. The respondent/ employer should do the needful in terms ofthis order, within 8 weeks from today.
14. The appeal is allowed with the above order. Respective coststo be borne by the parties.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
1 All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association & ors Vs. Union of India & ors,
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 664
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H