Pension For Government Servants Cannot Be Denied Based On Technicalities - Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court emphasized the significance of the right to pension for government servants, stating that it should not be denied based on technicalities. In a recent case, the court directed a college in Pune to overlook a gap in an employee's service, ensuring that he would be eligible for retirement benefits.

A panel comprising Justice GS Patel and Neela Gokhale expressed the view that provisions related to pensions should be interpreted liberally, considering them as a form of social welfare.

The petitioner, who was appointed as a professor of Pharmacy at the college in October 1999, had served intermittently until April 2009 due to the post being reserved for Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates. In the absence of an eligible ST candidate, the petitioner's services were utilized. Thereafter, from July 2009 to September 2020, the petitioner served continuously after being appointed in an open category. However, the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE), Maharashtra, denied him post-retirement benefits, claiming that he fell short of the required length of service by 1 month and 16 days. This discrepancy in service arose from technical breaks and vacations, resulting in a gap of 674 days.

The Court found that the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) had made a clear error in calculating the petitioner's qualifying service, resulting in wrongly deeming him ineligible for pension benefits.

Additionally, the Court determined that the payment of salary, even during technical breaks, indicated the existence of a contractual relationship. Therefore, it concluded that there was no actual gap in the petitioner's service.

Expressing disappointment, the Court criticized the college, the university, and the DTE for their failure to select a qualified candidate for the reserved category post. Furthermore, they were faulted for employing the petitioner as a temporary solution for an extended period, deliberately creating technical breaks to prevent him from completing the required service period for pension eligibility.

Consequently, the Court granted the petition and instructed the respondents to disburse the petitioner's pension in accordance with the applicable rules.