RAMCHANDRA KRISHNA KAMBLEversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PUNE ZILLA PARISHAD, PUNE AND ORS

                                                                                         907.WP8523_2022.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:35924-DB

       Vidya Amin
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 8523 OF 2022

               Ramchandra Krishna Kamble                                 … Petitioner
                      Vs.
               The Chief Executive Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad,
               Pune & Ors.                                               ...Respondents
                                                 _________
               Ms. Manisha Devkar a/w. Ms. Anjali Kondvilkar i/b. Mr. Shankar Katkar for the
               petitioner.
               Mr. S.V. Gavand with P.H. Gaikwad for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
               Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the State.
                                                __________

                                                CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                              DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                                DATE:         25 AUGUST, 2026.

               ORAL ORDER: (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

               1.      Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent

               of the parties, heard finally.

               2.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As a fair stand is taken on

               behalf of the respondents, we are inclined to dispose of this petition.

               3.      At the outset, we note the prayers as made in the petition, which read

               thus:

                       “a)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or an
                       appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus and thereby
                       quash and set aside the Order dated 2 June, 2021 passed by the Block Education
                       Officer, Bhor Panchayat Samitee, and direct the Block Education Officer to
                       release the pension without insisting on a Caste Validity Certificate.
                       b)       This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or an
                       appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus and thereby
                       quash and set aside the order dated 24 May, 2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe
                       Caste Scrutiny Committee.”



                                                     Page 1 of 18
                                                   25 August, 2026
                                                                  907.WP8523_2022.DOC



4.     Briefly the facts are : The petitioner was appointed on 21 October, 1985 as

an Assistant Teacher, following due process of law. An appointment order dated

21 October, 1985 to that effect was issued by the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Pune. The appointment of the petitioner was thereafter duly approved. We find

from the appointment order that the petitioner was not appointed against a

reserved post, although there is a clause in the appointment order in regard to the

candidates belonging to the Economically Backward Class, stipulating that they

would be required to furnish adequate proof in that regard.

5.     Despite the aforesaid clear position and the petitioner being not appointed

on a reserved post, in the year 2015 the petitioner was called upon by the

respondents to submit a Caste Certificate and Caste Validity Certificate. The

petitioner accordingly obtained a Caste Certificate, which was issued to him on 3

June, 2015 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhor, certifying that the petitioner

belonged to “Mahadev Koli Tribe”, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the

Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950.          In such circumstances, the

petitioner approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8 February, 2016,

seeking validation of the said Caste Certificate.        The    proceedings were

accordingly adjudicated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which rendered its

decision dated 24 May, 2018 invalidating the Caste Certificate issued in favour of

the petitioner. Despite such decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the

petitioner was continued in service and ultimately superannuated on 31 July,

2021. The petitioner has, however, been denied pensionary benefits on the

ground that the petitioner’s caste certificate was invalidated, on the basis of the


                                  Page 2 of 18
                                25 August, 2026
                                                                                          907.WP8523_2022.DOC



impugned communication dated 2 June, 2021, the contents of which are required

to be noted, which read thus:

       (Translation of a photocopy of a LETTER, typewritten in Marathi)
                                          EXHIBIT-A
                     Panchayat Samiti Office, Bhor (Education Department)
                                  Taluka Bhor, District Pune.

       E-Mail I.D. [email protected]                        Telephone No. 02113-222538
       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       O. No. P.S./Education/Estt.-3/976/2021 Date : 02.06.2021
       To,
       Shri Ramchandra Krishna Kamble,
       Assistant Teacher, Z. P. Primary School, Kari,
       Taluka Bhor, District – Pune.

            Subject : Regarding submitting Caste Validity Certificate.
       In connection with the above-mentioned subject, you are herebyinstructed that
       you are retiring on the date 31.07.2021 on superannuation and in view thereof,
       in the matter of the pension proposal, on verifying the Service book, the entry
       of Caste Validity Certificate is not found to have been made in the said Service
       Book. Therefore, upon receipt of this letter, you are requested to immediately
       submit your Caste Validity Certificate to this Office. However, if you fail to
       submit the Caste Validity Certificate, you shall be held personally responsible
       for the delay which would be caused in your pension-case, which may be
       seriously noted.
                                                           (Signature Illegible)
                                                           (Ashwini Sonavane)
                                                           Group Education Officer,
                                                           Panchayat Samiti, Bhor.”


6.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has four principal submissions. Firstly,

it is submitted that the petitioner was not appointed against a reserved post,

which, according to the learned counsel, was clear from the appointment order

dated 21 October, 1985. Her second submission is that for almost 30 years, i.e.,

upto the year 2015, there was no insistence on the petitioner for obtaining a Caste

Certificate or a Caste Validity Certificate. Although there was no requirement for

the petitioner to obtain a caste certificate, pursuant to the insistence of the

respondents, the petitioner obtained the Caste Certificate, which was

                                            Page 3 of 18
                                          25 August, 2026
                                                                   907.WP8523_2022.DOC



subsequently invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 24

May, 2018. It is, therefore, submitted that, in such circumstances, it was not legal

and/or it was arbitrary for the respondents to insist for a Caste Certificate and

Caste Validity Certificate. The third submission as made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that, despite the Caste Certificate not being validated by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner was continued in service. According to

the petitioner, there is also a policy of the State Government whereby even

assuming, that the petitioner was appointed on a reserved post belonging to the

Schedule Tribe category, the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe

category whose Caste Validity Certificates were not validated were decided not to

be removed from service and their appointments were to be protected as a one-

time measure until their superannuation by creating supernumerary post. It is

submitted that such protection was intended to operate for all service purposes,

which would include pensionary benefits. The fourth submission is that, in any

event, the case of the petitioner would stand covered by the recent decision of

this Court in Ratnamala Anilkumar Swami vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

rendered in Writ Petition No. 7684 of 2025 dated 10 August, 2026, in which this

Court has taken into consideration the Government policy in respect of

Scheduled Tribe and which was also made applicable in the peculiar facts of the

case in relation to other categories of Scheduled Tribe and more particularly when

the petitioner therein was continued in employment for a long period after the

validity was not granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is her contention

that in these circumstances, the petitioner who has retired on 31 July, 2021 is


                                  Page 4 of 18
                                25 August, 2026
                                                                   907.WP8523_2022.DOC



deprived of pension benefits and retiral benefits till date, needs to be awarded

pension and all the retiral benefits are required to be given in favour of the

petitioner.


7.     Although this petition is pending since 2022 and it appeared before the

Court on several occasions, no reply affidavit has been filed. The respondents

have accordingly forfeited their right to file reply affidavit. Learned counsel for

the respondent has, however, submitted that in the event, the petitioner is making

any representation, the same would be appropriately considered and decision

would be given.


8.     We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset,

we may observe that several orders have been passed in the present proceedings.

Considering such order, if the respondents were desirous of contesting the

petition, they ought to have filed a reply affidavit. However, they have chosen not

to contest the petition on merits.        In fact, specific order permitting the

respondents to file reply affidavit has not been complied.


9.     Be that as it may, in our opinion, the petitioner appears to be correct in all

his contention to the effect that admittedly the petitioner had rendered long years

of service with the respondent-Zilla Parishad since the year 1985.               The

appointment order of the petitioner also does not indicate that he was appointed

on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Thus, in our opinion, there was no need

for the respondents to foist a condition on the petitioner for obtaining a Caste

Certificate and thereafter approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation


                                  Page 5 of 18
                                25 August, 2026
                                                                   907.WP8523_2022.DOC



of the said certificate. In any event, we find that such insistence remained merely

an exercise on paper, inasmuch as although the Caste Certificate was invalidated

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 24 May, 2018, the petitioner was continued

in service thereafter since the petitioner was superannuated on 31 July, 2022. It is

only just prior to his superannuation, the impugned communication dated 2 June,

2021 is issued to the petitioner and by virtue of which the petitioner is now

denied retiral benefits as also the pension. The impugned communication pre-

supposes that the appointment of the petitioner was on a reserved post, which in

fact was not on the reserved post as clearly seen from the appointment order dated

21 October, 1985 and thus, there was no warrant in the respondent insisting for

any Caste Certificate. Subsequently, there would also be no warrant in the

respondents withdrawing the retiral benefits and pension to the petitioner.


10.    We are also in agreement when the petitioner contends that reliefs as

prayed for by the petitioner, would stand covered by the recent decision of this

Court in Ratnamala Anilkumar Swami (supra). In the said case, the issue before

the Court was similar as in the present case where the petitioner was denied

pension and on similar grounds when the Caste Certificate was not validated,

although in the said case, the petitioner was belonging to Scheduled Caste

category. The Court was considering the principles of law as also the consistent

Government policy, as reflected in the Government Resolution dated 27

December, 2019 and more particularly paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 thereof which

granted protection to the Scheduled Tribe candidates when it considered it

appropriate to award pension to the said petitioner. The present case, in our

                                  Page 6 of 18
                                25 August, 2026
                                                                           907.WP8523_2022.DOC



opinion, would stand squarely covered by the Government Resolution dated 27

December, 2019, which confers a protection to the Scheduled Tribe candidates on

humanitarian grounds. In these circumstances, the Division Bench has considered

the settled principles of law surrounding entitlement and grant of pension to the

Government employees, when it observed that it is a settled position that pension

is neither a charity, nor a gratuitous payment, nor a bounty to be distributed at the

sweet will of the executive. It was observed that pension has been conceptualized

as an enforceable legal right, grounded in constitutional and socio-economic

principles, as also it is regarded as a deferred wages compensation earned by an

employee through long, continuous and faithful service rather than paying the

full value of labour during active employment. It was also observed that from a

social welfare perspective in relation to pension, it is held that three main socio-

economic objectives are met, namely, to ensure economic independence and

dignity in old age, when physical capacity to earn diminishes, it protects the

employee against economic insecurity and post-retirement destitution as also it

serves as a reward for past unblemished service. If these are solemn principles on

which the right and entitlement to receive pension would arise, we find the basic

insensitivity is in denying pension for almost a period of five years. The relevant

observations as made by the Court in the said decision are required to be noted,

which read thus:

       “12. It is not the Respondents' case that Respondent No. 2 in any manner had
       invoked the provisions of Section 10 to take any action against the Petitioner's
       husband, on the basis of order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Caste Scrutiny
       Committee so as to discharge him from the service. In fact, the Petitioner's
       deceased husband was continued in the employment, without any action being
       taken, till he expired in harness on 08.09.2020. Even if we consider that such
       action was not taken by the Respondents, by virtue of the protection as granted by

                                      Page 7 of 18
                                    25 August, 2026
                                                                    907.WP8523_2022.DOC



this Court vide order dated 27.09.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.9133 of 2013,
the fact remains that he was continued in the service. Thus, the legal status as
enjoyed by the Petitioner's husband qua the employment in question was that he
remained in service till he expired on 08.09.2020. He clearly died in harness.

13.     In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court cannot be
oblivious to the fact, that no action was taken by the Respondents under Section
10 of the said Act during his lifetime. In the event any action against him under
the said provision was to be resorted, the husband could have approached this
Court to challenge the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. All these
circumstances, in our opinion, has certainly brought about a situation, which is
not governed under the provisions of Section 10 and more particularly, when the
Petitioner was granted provisional family pension by an order dated 27.01.2021
and the same was abruptly halted after a period of six months. We also find that
the State Government, in regard to the candidates who belonged to the Scheduled
Tribe (reserved category) has taken a policy decision to protect their employment
in such circumstances on invalidity of the Caste Certificate, as a humanitarian
measure, for the long years of service rendered by such employees. Our attention
to that effect is drawn to the Government Resolution dated 27.12.2019, more
particularly Paragraph Nos.4.1 and 4.2, which read thus:

   "4.1 On account of non-submission of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Validity
   Certificate, all Administrative Departments concerned shall, pursuant to
   this Government Resolution, create supernumerary posts in the cadre of
   the posts currently held by such Officers and Employees, equivalent to the
   number of Officers and Employees whose services are being transferred to
   supernumerary posts and all the Administrative Departments concerned,
   on humanitarian grounds and to obviate administrative exigencies, shall
   appoint such Officers and Employees to the said supernumerary posts on a
   purely temporary basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months or until the date
   on which they would have retired, if they had continued in service,
   whichever is earlier.

   4.2 As regards those Officers and Employees who were discharged from
   service prior to the issuance of this Government Resolution, all
   Administrative Departments concerned shall create supernumerary posts in
   the cadre of the post held by such Officers and Employees prior to their
   termination from the service and shall, on humanitarian grounds and to
   obviate administrative exigencies, appoint them to the said supernumerary
   posts on a purely temporary basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months, or
   until the date on which they would have retired if they had continued in
   service, whichever is earlier."

14.     Thus, it appears that the State Government was concerned, when long
years of service was rendered by the employees and a situation of such nature of
Caste Validity Certificate being not furnished or invalidated had arisen; such
employees, considering their long service, would be protected by creating
supernumerary posts.
15. Further from the decisions cited at the Bar, it is clear that such issues had
reached the Courts. We find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case
Prakash s/ Fulchand Barwal (supra), considered a similar situation, wherein the
petitioner therein who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category, had expired. He
was appointed as a peon in the year 1988 against a post reserved for Scheduled
Tribes. His Caste Certificate was referred for verification to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, which invalidated his claim vide order dated 30.09.1989.

                              Page 8 of 18
                            25 August, 2026
                                                                        907.WP8523_2022.DOC



Consequent thereto, his services came to be terminated vide order dated
10.12.1989. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed. He
expired during the pendency of the said petition. It is in these circumstances, the
Court recognized the entitlement of the legal heirs for grant of family pension.
The relevant observations read thus:

   "2] The original petitioner was appointed as Peon by the respondent no.4
   by the order dated 11.7.1988. The petitioner's appointment was against a
   post reserved for scheduled tribe. As such the claim of the petitioner was
   referred to the scheduled tribe caste verification committee. The said
   committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner vide order dated
   30.9.1989. On the ground of invalidation, the petitioner's services came to
   be terminated vide order dated 10.12.1989. The appeal preferred by the
   petitioner against the order of the caste verification committee was
   dismissed on 27.10.1993. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition was
   filed.

   3] While granting Rule, this Court had granted interim relief in terms of
   prayer clause (B). As such in pursuance to the interim order, the petitioner
   was to work as a Peon with the respondent no.4. Subsequently, Civil
   Application No. 5571/1994 was filed by the respondent no.4 for vacating
   the interim relief. The same came to be rejected.

   4] During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner has died
   and his legal heirs are brought on record. Since the original petitioner has
   already died, the question regarding his claim of belonging to scheduled
   tribe does not arise. The legal heirs of the original petitioner have restricted
   the claim in the present petition only for grant of family pension.

   5] The petitioner was originally appointed on 18.7.1988. By virtue of
   interim order passed in the year 1994, the petitioner was directed to be
   reinstated. The original petitioner has died on 5.12.2003. Considering the
   date of appointment of the original petitioner to be 11/18.7.1988, the
   original petitioner has rendered the service of more than 15 years. As such
   the petitioner's widow would be entitled to the family pension. We
   accordingly extend the benefit of family pension to the widow of the
   original petitioner i.e. present petitioner no.1 - Smt. Shobhabai w/o Prakash
   Barwal.

   6] We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents
   to give the benefits of family pension to the widow of the original
   petitioner from the date of his death i.e. 5.12.2003. The said benefit be
   extended to the widow of the petitioner namely Smt. Shobhabai w/o
   Prakash Barwal within a period of six months from today along with the
   arrears. No order as to costs."
                                                   [emphasis supplied]

16.     The aforesaid decision in Prakash s/o Fulchand Barwal (supra), was
followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Saraswati w/o
Nagnath Mupde (supra), in which the husband of the Petitioner therein was
working as a teacher and appointed on the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe
category. His Caste Certificate was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Considering the decisions in case of Prakash s/o Fulchand Barwal (supra), the
Court made the following observations:


                                Page 9 of 18
                              25 August, 2026
                                                                     907.WP8523_2022.DOC



  "5. It was held in Prakash Barwal (supra), that the LR's were entitled for the
  pensionary benefits since the bread earner had passed away while in
  service. Family pension was, therefore, directed to be paid to the widow
  from the date of his death. In Sunita W/o Late Pradip Thakar Vs. The State
  of Maharashtra and Others. 2022 (1) Mh.L.J. 219, this Court dealt with the
  claim of a widow and following the law laid down in Prakash Barwal
  (supra), this Court also granted the pensionary benefits. The Petitioner's
  case is practically identical to both reported judgments.

  6. We are informed that the Petitioner was receiving provisional pension,
  which was subsequently discontinued.

  7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed with the
  following directions:
  A) Respondent No. 3/Headmaster would forward the proposal of the
  Petitioner, as a widow, for receiving the pension, to Respondent
  No.4/Education Officer (Primary), within 30 days from today.

  B) the said proposal would be dealt with by the appropriate Authorities and
  considering the order of this Court in Prakash Barwal (supra) and Sunita
  Thakur(supra), the Petitioner shall be entitled for pension from the date of
  the demise of her husband.

  C) The arrears be calculated and be paid to the Petitioner on or before
  30.11.2024, if not already paid, and the commencement of payment of
  pension shall be from the month of June, 2024. In the meanwhile, the
  provisional pension shall continue and such amounts received by way of
  provisional pension would be adjusted as against the arrears of pension.

  D) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms."
                                                         [emphasis supplied]

17.    In a recent decision in the case of Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane (supra),
the deceased husband of the petitioner therein was the only bread earner. He was
selected and appointed on the post, which was reserved for the backward
category. He retired on 30.06.2020 and passed away on 18.07.2022. There was
no dispute in regard to pensionary and entitlement of retiral benefits. The
employer, however, took a stand that the same would not be payable to the legal
representatives of the petitioner, since the deceased employee did not tender the
Caste Validity Certificate, and since the employee's claim of belonging to the
reserved category was not validated, the petitioner would not be entitled for
grant of family pension. It is in these circumstances, a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Manda w/o Prakash Sonawane (supra), relying on the
decision of this Court in the matter of Kamlabai w/o Shaphadu Salve Vs. the
State of Maharashtra & Ors. 4, and also the Supreme Court in the matter of
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs.
Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors., recognized the entitlement for family pension
and other reliefs and made following observations:

  "8. In similar set of facts, this Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge and S.G.
  Mehare, JJ.) delivered a Judgment on 20 th July, 2021 in Writ Petition
  No.6485 of 2020 at Aurangabad (Sunita w/o Late Pradip Thakar Vs. State
  of Maharashtra and Ors.) and by placing reliance on a Judgment of this
  Court, dated 12 th August, 2010 delivered in Writ Petition No.3718 of
  1994 (Prakash Fulchand Barwal since deceased through his Legal Heirs

                             Page 10 of 18
                            25 August, 2026
                                                                        907.WP8523_2022.DOC



   Smt. Shobhabai Barwal and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.),
   allowed the claim of Sunita and directed the payment of family pension
   and all retiral benefits as would have been admissible to the deceased
   employee had he normally superannuated from service. For similar reasons,
   this Court has delivered several Judgments which are annexed to the
   Petition paper-book.

   9. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
   clause (A). Necessary papers for releasing the family pension payable to the
   eligible Legal Representatives of the deceased Employee, shall be moved by
   the Employer within 30 days and it shall be the duty of the Employer, as
   well as the Authorities concerned, to ensure that the arrears of pension are
   paid to the eligible Legal Representatives, within a period of 90 days from
   today. Gratuity amount shall also be paid within a period of 60 days with
   admissible statutory interest @ 12% per annum in the light of the
   Government Notification dated 5th October, 1999 issued by the
   Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department
   of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare. Needless to state, that the LRs of the
   deceased would co-operate with the authorities, if the preparation of the
   papers.

   10. It is made clear that if any of the eligible Legal Representatives of the
   deceased Employee, desire to seek compassionate employment, the law laid
   down by the Full Bench of this Court in Om Bhagwanrao Anjanwad vs.
   State of Maharashtra and Anr., (Full Bench), 2022 (4) Mh.L.J. 723, would
   be squarely applicable."

18.      Considering the aforesaid consistent view, we are of the opinion that the
Respondents in the present case would not be correct in their contention that in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner should be deprived of
family pension. We cannot accept the contention that as in Prakash S/o Fulchand
Barwal (supra) and in Saraswati w/o Nagnath Mupde (supra), the Petitioners
belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, and as in the present case the Petitioner's
deceased husband belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, different view needs
to be taken to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled for the family pension. Such
view would be per se discriminatory when the consideration is entitlement to
pension. The reason being that undoubtedly the Petitioner's deceased husband
continued in service for a very long period i.e., about 25 years, till he expired. The
provisions of Section 10 were not invoked, inasmuch as, no action was taken to
discharge the service of the Petitioner's deceased husband, on the ground that the
validity was not awarded to his Caste Certificate, moreover, he was continued in
service till he expired. In these circumstances, we do not find any warrant in law,
and more particularly when the Respondent in the reply Affidavit has confined
their opposition only referring to Section 10 of the said Act to disentitle the
Petitioner for grant of family pension. It is significant that even the Respondent
did not seek vacating the interim protection, which was granted to the Petitioner's
husband in the proceedings in Writ Petition No.9133 of 2013 (supra). Thus, the
clear legal and unimpeachable status of the Petitioner's deceased husband, on the
day he expired, cannot be overlooked so as to refuse the benefit and entitlement
of family pension to the Petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee.
Denying family pension to her in such circumstances would amount to a travesty
of justice.

19.     Further, we cannot be oblivious to the jurisprudence surrounding
entitlement and grant of pension which by now is firmly established. It is well

                               Page 11 of 18
                              25 August, 2026
                                                                              907.WP8523_2022.DOC



       settled that pension is neither a charity, nor a gratuitous payment, nor a bounty to
       be distributed at the sweet will of the executive. It has been conceptualized as an
       enforceable legal right, grounded in constitutional and socio-economic principles.
       Pension is also regarded as a deferred wages compensation earned by an employee
       through long, continuous and faithful service rather than paying the full value of
       labour during active employment. It has been held that the right to receive
       pension constitutes 'property', earlier under Article 31(1), which was a
       fundamental right and after its repeal, a constitutional protection guaranteed
       under Article 300A. Consequently, a pensionary entitlement, once vested in an
       employee, cannot be taken away merely by an executive order or administrative
       action. Deprivation of such property must have the authority of law, and therefore
       requires express statutory sanction or other valid legal authority. From a social
       welfare perspective in relation to pension, it is held that three main socio-
       economic objectives are met, namely, to ensure economic independence and
       dignity in old age, when physical capacity to earn diminishes. It protects the
       employee against economic insecurity and post-retirement destitution as also it
       serves as a reward for past unblemished service. Pension is hence held to be a legal
       right flowing from statutory service rules, and not an act of grace. The
       government has no discretionary power to arbitrarily withhold, delay or modify it.
       Any culpable delay in paying retirement benefits attracts an interest penalty as a
       matter of statutory right.”
                                                                      (emphasis supplied)



11.   In making the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench has referred to

the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad

v. State of Bihar, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, State of Kerala v. M.

Padmanabhan Nair, State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava.                            The

prinicples in regard to award of pension as laid down by the Supreme Court in the

said decisions as referred by the Division Bench are also required to be noted,

which read thus:

       “20. In the aforesaid context, we may usefully refer to the following decisions:-
       20.1 In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court was confronted
       with the question as to whether the right to receive pension could be withheld by
       the State in the absence of statutory authority. The Court held that the right to
       receive pension flows from the applicable service rules and does not depend upon
       any order granting such pension. It further held that the right to pension
       constitutes "property" and cannot be taken away by a mere executive order. The
       relevant observations read thus:
          "15. The questions that arise for consideration are whether the orders,
          dated August 5, 1966 and June 12, 1968, are legal and valid. Before we
          consider that aspect, it is necessary to state that in order to sustain this
          petition under Article 32, the petitioner will have to establish that either
          the order, dated August 5, 1966 or June 12, 1968, or both of them affect

                                      Page 12 of 18
                                     25 August, 2026
                                                                    907.WP8523_2022.DOC



his fundamental rights guaranteed to him. The order of August 5, 1966,
according to the petitioner, is one removing him from service and it has
been passed in violation of Article 311. That the said order is one removing
the petitioner from service is also admitted by the respondents in para 11 of
the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf by the Assistant Director of
Education. Assuming that the said order has been passed in violation of
Article 311, the said circumstance will not give a right to the petitioner to
approach this Court under Article 32. The stand taken by the petitioner is
that his right to get pension is property and it does not cease to be property
on the mere denial or cancellation by the respondents. The order, dated
June 12, 1968, is one withholding the payment of pension or at any rate
amounts to a denial by the respondents to his right to get pension. Either
way, his rights to property are affected under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of
the Constitution. His right to pension cannot be taken away by an
executive order. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents do not dispute
the rights of the petitioner to get pension, but they take the stand that the
order, dated June 12, 1968, is justified by Rule 46 of the Pension Rules.
This aspect will be dealt with by us later. There is only a bald averment in
the counter-affidavit that there is no question of any fundamental right and
therefore this petition is not maintainable. As to on what basis this plea is
taken, has not been further clarified in the counter-affidavit. But before us
Mr B.P. Jha, learned Counsel for the respondents, urged that by
withholding the payment of pension by the State, no fundamental rights of
the petitioner have been affected.
16. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr Jha that no
fundamental rights of the petitioner are affected by passing the order, dated
June 12, 1968. We will in due course refer to the relevant Pension Rules
bearing on the matter also certain decisions. In our opinion, the right to get
pension is "property" and by withholding the same, the petitioner's
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) are
affected. As the matter is being discussed more fully in the latter part of the
judgment, it is enough to state at this stage that the writ petition is
maintainable. Even according to the respondents the order, dated June 12,
1968, has no independent existence and that order has been passed on the
basis of the earlier order, dated August 5, 1966. In our opinion, if the order,
dated August 5, 1966, cannot be sustained, it will follow that the order,
dated June 12, 1968, will also fall to the ground. Hence we will deal, in the
first instance, with the validity of the order, dated August 5, 1966. The full
text of the order, dated August 5, 1966, passed by the Director of Public
Instruction, Bihar, is as follows:
....
28. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and
the respondents by an executive order, dated June 12, 1968, have
wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights
under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as
we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get
pension, but for the order passed on August 5, 1966. There is only a bald
averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental
right arises for consideration. Mr Jha, learned Counsel for the respondents,
was not prepared to take up the position that the right to receive pension
cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to
him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension.
We understood the learned Counsel to urge that if the State had passed an

                            Page 13 of 18
                           25 August, 2026
                                                                      907.WP8523_2022.DOC



   order granting pension and later on resiles from that order, the latter order
   may be considered to affect the petitioner's right regarding property so as to
   attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.
   29. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for
   the respondents. By a reference to the material provisions in the Pension
   Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend
   upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that
   for the purposes of qualifying the amount having regard to the period of
   service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to
   pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an
   officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules,
   we have already pointed out, clearly recognise the right of persons like the
   petitioners to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein.
   ****
   33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that
   the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1)
   and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the
   same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it
   is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the
   order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension
   affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and
   31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is
   maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there
   is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters
   mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus
   being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for
   payment of pension according to law."
20.2 In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 7, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue, as
to the nature and significance of pension payable to a retired employee. The Court
held that pension is not merely compensation for past service, but is also a measure
of socio-economic justice intended to provide economic security in old age,
particularly when the physical and mental capacity to earn diminishes, and
represents deferred compensation for the service rendered. The relevant
observations read thus:
   "20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous
   payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not
   claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced
   through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the
   Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein this
   Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it
   does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed
   by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled
   to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not
   depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying
   the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be
   necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to
   receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by
   virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal
   Singh.

   .....



                              Page 14 of 18
                             25 August, 2026
                                                                       907.WP8523_2022.DOC



   29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only
   compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a
   broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which
   inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental
   prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is
   required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give
   your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity,
   economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has
   been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in
   consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one
   retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee
   is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said
   to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one
   sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the
   inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid
   unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back
   upon.

   30. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute
   introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and
   accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the courts may not
   so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American
   Jurisprudence, 2d, 881).

   31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a
   bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the
   employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are
   statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers
   conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the
   Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a
   payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure
   rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life
   ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they
   would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of
   pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn
   during last three years of service reduced to 10 months under liberalised
   pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of
   impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the
   cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn
   as a disciplinary measure."

                                                          (emphasis supplied]

20.3 Similarly, in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, the Supreme Court
was confronted with the issue of delay in the settlement and disbursement of
pensionary and other retiral benefits. The Court held that pension and gratuity
are valuable rights and property in the hands of the employee and that any
culpable delay in their settlement and disbursement must be visited with the
payment of interest at the current market rate. The relevant observations of the
Supreme Court read thus:

   "1. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the
   Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under
   the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and

                               Page 15 of 18
                              25 August, 2026
                                                                        907.WP8523_2022.DOC



   any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited
   with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual
   payment.

   2. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (last
   pay certificate) and the N.L.C. (no liability certificate) from the concerned
   Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof
   would be with the concerned Government Departments. Since the date of
   retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance
   we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information
   and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a
   week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount
   could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the
   following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The
   necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government
   servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it
   would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest
   on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of
   two months from the date of retirement.

20.4 Further, in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, the Supreme
Court was confronted with the issue as to whether pension and gratuity could be
withheld during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings in the
absence of any provision in the applicable Pension Rules. The Court, while
holding that pension and gratuity constitute "property" within the meaning of
Article 300A of the Constitution, observed thus:

   "8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An
   employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and
   unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara
   v. Union of India by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his
   inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp.319-20, paras 18-20)

       "18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too
       easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it
       required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will
       include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any
       obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee
       even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the
       employee has ceased to render service?

       19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public
       interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve
       some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of
       retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these
       and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties
       to this petition.

       20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous
       payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer
       not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be
       enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the
       decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State
       of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634] wherein this

                               Page 16 of 18
                              25 August, 2026
                                                                                  907.WP8523_2022.DOC



                   Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment
                   of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is
                   governed by the rules and a government servant coming within
                   those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the
                   grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is
                   only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to
                   service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the
                   authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive
                   pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by
                   virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v.
                   Iqbal Singh."

          It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the
          nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without
          the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the
          Constitution of India.
          ......
          15. In State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee this Court recognised that even
          when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the
          Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f.
          20-6-1979, the right to property no longer remained a fundamental right,
          it was still a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300-A of the
          Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property.
          Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West
          Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which
          conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension
          or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was
          repelled by this Court.
          16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that
          the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property". Article
          300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:
                   "300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of
                   law.--No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
                   of law."
          Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us
          in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot
          be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the
          constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It
          follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or
          gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and
          under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced."


12.    In our opinion, in the present case, the respondents have acted in an

arbitrary and highhanded manner in regard to pension to be awarded to the

petitioner.


13.    We are thus of the clear opinion that the impugned communication dated

                                          Page 17 of 18
                                         25 August, 2026
                                                                                             907.WP8523_2022.DOC



                        2 June, 2021 is totally arbitrary in the facts of the case, which cannot be in any

                        manner foisted on the petitioner, to deny the pensionary benefits and more

                        particularly in view of the State Government Policy even if the appointment of

                        the petitioner was to be made from the Scheduled Tribe category the candidate

                        would be entitled to be granted pension.

                        14.      In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the petitioner

                        has become entitled to pension. The petition is accordingly required to be

                        allowed. It is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). We direct that all retiral

                        benefits along with interest @8% p.a. be released to the petitioner within a period

                        of four weeks from today. Apart from retiral benefits, the arrears of pension be

                        also disbursed to the petitioner with interest @ 8% p.a. It is also declared that

                        the petitioner henceforth would be paid monthly pension in accordance with law

                        and as per rules.


                        15.      The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.



                        (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                  (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




Signed by: Vidya S. Amin                                   Page 18 of 18
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge                       25 August, 2026
Date: 02/09/2026 11:53:26