VEENA PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 Pension
Scheme – On facts, employee opted for receiving 90% pension
during his life time as provided under the Pension Scheme and on
his death, his widow-appellant entitled to receive in lump sum, an
amount equal to 100 times his full monthly pension, in addition to
family pension – On employee’s death on 12.01.11, appellant’s claim
for lump sum amount rejected on the ground that the provision was
abolished w.e.f 21.02.2011 and the 10% surrendered amount had
been refunded to all pensioners with interest – Writ petition by the
appellant seeking disbursal of the pensionary benefits and quashing
of the letter whereby she was communicated that no other payment
was due – Writ petition dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground
of lack of territorial jurisdiction – Said order upheld by the Division
Bench – On appeal, held: The Pension Scheme was framed as a
measure of social security for ensuring socio-economic justice for
the employees in the coal sector – Pension is the deferred portion
of the compensation for rendering long years of service – In view
thereof, the sum due and payable under the Pension Scheme to be
disbursed to the appellant after adjusting the amount refunded
earlier – Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 – Para 15(1)(b), Para
15(2).
Retiral benefits – Pension – Nature of – Held: Pension is the
deferred portion of the compensation for rendering long years of
service – It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee and is
in the nature of property.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion
of the compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee and has been held
to be in the nature of property. [Para 11][407-A-D]
1.2 The High Court did not consider her entitlement on
merit, but had dismissed both the Writ Petition and the LPA,
citing want of territorial jurisdiction. The employment of the
appellant’s husband with the respondent employer is however
not in dispute. Nevertheless, for over a decade, the widow of the
employee is forced to litigate to secure the pension benefits. In
the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, without
commenting on the legality of the decision to discontinue the
said provision in the pension scheme by the employer, as the
pensioner was not alive on the date of discontinuance, it is ordered
that the sum due and payable under the Pension scheme be
computed and be disbursed to the appellant. The amount earlier
refunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during the
remittance process. [Para 12, 13][407-B-E]
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association &
ors v. Union of India & Ors, (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 664;
State of Jharkhand and Others v. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and Another (2013) 12 SCC 210 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
(1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 664
relied on
Para 11
(2013) 12 SCC 210
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6953 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.701 of 2017 in Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9837 of 2014.
Santosh Kumar, Madhurendra Sharma, Rajiv Ranjan Mishra,
Yadav 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
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.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of claims for pensionary benefits
under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Pension Scheme, 1998’ for short). The appellant’s husband
Ramashankar Pandey rendered service in the South Eastern Coal Fields
Ltd., Bilaspur, after being transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd in
1999. The employee retired on 31.05.2004 as Chief Personnel Manager
at Bilaspur and later settled in Bhojpur, Bihar with his family. He opted
for receiving 90% pension during his life time as provided under para
15 1(b) of t

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