The Allahabad High Court has held that pension and gratuity are valuable constitutional rights protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution and cannot be withheld except by authority of law. The Court directed the State authorities to release the petitioner’s gratuity along with interest, observing that delayed payment of retiral benefits must be compensated.
Justice Siddharth Nandan was dealing with the case of a government employee who had taken voluntary retirement before attaining the age of 60 years. The authorities denied her gratuity on the ground that she had not exercised the option to retire at the age of 60 years. The petitioner contended that under Fundamental Rule 56(e) and the Government Order dated July 31, 2001, employees opting for voluntary retirement are entitled to all retiral benefits, including gratuity.
Relying on a catena of Supreme Court decisions, the Court reiterated that pension and gratuity are not a bounty but valuable rights earned through long and continuous service. It observed that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment, while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to enjoy constitutional protection under Article 300-A, and pensionary benefits fall within its ambit.
The Court further held that an employee who is permitted to retire voluntarily before attaining the age of 60 years is entitled to gratuity under Fundamental Rule 56(e) and the Government Order dated July 31, 2001. It ruled that the State cannot deny gratuity merely because the employee did not specifically opt to retire at the age of 60 years.
Observing that interest is the natural consequence of unjustified retention of retiral dues, the Court directed the authorities to calculate and pay the gratuity within two months along with 8% interest from the date it became due until actual payment. It further ordered that if payment is not made within the stipulated period, the interest rate would increase to 12%, and the additional interest would be recoverable from the salary of the officer responsible for the delay. The Court also directed payment of interest on the delayed release of the petitioner’s GPF amount.
Taking a stern view of unjustified withholding of retiral benefits, the High Court directed the State to recover the interest component from the erring officer who wrongfully rejected the employee’s claim and to initiate proceedings against such officer, including after retirement, if permissible under the applicable service rules. It also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all District Inspectors of Schools across Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance
