THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. versus DR. SACHINDRA NARAYAN & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 748 · Decided: 30-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
v.
DR. SACHINDRA NARAYAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 884 of 2019)
JANUARY 30, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act,
1964:
ss. 6, 8, 9 and 10 – Payment of Pension – To the employees of
the Institute incorporated under the Act – Responsibility to pay –
Whether on State Government –  As per resolution dated 15.02.1985,
the Board of the institute implemented retiral benefits which were to
be paid by the Institute from its own resources – Pension was paid
to the employees after the resolution, but was stopped from January
2014 – Writ petition seeking direction for payment of pension and
arrears thereof – Petition dismissed by High Court holding that
State was not obliged to pay the pension in view of the resolution –
In intra-court appeal Division Bench of High Court held that the
State was obliged to pay the pension – On appeal, held: The
resolution of the Board of the Institute to implement the retirement
benefit scheme from its own resources will not bind the State
Government to pay the amount of pension – The provision of payment
of pension in the Budget of the State Government was a voluntary
act, and not enforceable by a Writ of Mandamus – Release of grant
is in the discretion of the grantor and cannot be forced by the grantee
– Obligation to bear the amount of pension by the State Government
is not mandated either by s. 8 or s. 9 of the Act – Payment of pension
in the past, will not confer an enforceable right in favour of the
Institute or the employees.
Administrative Law:
Legitimate Expectation – Held: Legitimate expectation is one
of the grounds of judicial review, but unless a legal obligation exists,
there cannot be legitimate expectation – It is not a wish or a desire
or a hope and hence cannot be claimed as a right.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 748
748
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The resolution of the Board of the Institute to
implement a retirement benefit scheme from its own resources
will not bind the State Government to pay the amount of pension
to the employees of the Institute.  The employees of such
Institute cannot be treated at par with the employees of the State
Government nor the State can be burdened with the responsibility
to pay pension to the employees of the Institute. [Para 23][762-
E-F]
2. Section 6 of the Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of
Social Studies Act, 1964 empowers the Board to create posts
and to hold, control and administer its property and the funds,
but the post carrying an emolument of rupees one thousand per
month or more cannot be created without the previous approval
of the State Government. Though the proviso to Section 6(2) of
the Act requires approval of the State Government in respect of
creation of post carrying pay of more than Rs.1000/-, but the
intention is that any financial expenditure of recurring nature
would require the approval of the State Government. Therefore,
if the amount of pension exceeds rupees one thousand per month,
the same could not be claimed from the State Government as a
right without approval. The State Government cannot be called
upon to bear the burden of the pension as such scheme was not
approved or even sought for.  The provision of payment of pension
in the Budget of the State Government is a voluntary act not
enforceable by a writ of mandamus. The release of grant is in
discretion of the grantor and cannot be forced by the grantee.
[Para 15][758-A-D]
3. It is true that in certain financial years as per documents
on record, the amount of pension was specifically mentioned while
granting grant to the Institute, but such amount is in discretion
of the State and cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus.  There
is no obligation on the State to disburse the grant towards the
pension amount in terms of the Act or the Rules or even in terms
of the resolution of the Board. [Para 16][758-E-F]
4. Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act mandates the State
Government to contribute a sum of rupees two lacs in each
financial year for the maintenance of the Institute, whereas, sub-
THE STATE OF BIHAR v. DR. SACHINDRA NARAYAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Section (2) empowers the State Government to contribute from
time to time, such additional sums as it may deem fit for special
items of research or education work, publication, buildings and
for proper

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.