Holding

The Supreme Court held that the widow is entitled to the lump‑sum benefit under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, and that the High Court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was erroneous.

Summary

Ramashankar Pandey, a retired employee of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., had opted for a 90% pension under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, which entitled his widow to a lump‑sum payment of 100 times his monthly pension upon his death. After his death on 12 January 2011, the widow’s claim for the lump sum was rejected on the ground that the provision had been abolished on 21 February 2011 and the surrendered 10% amount had been refunded with interest. She filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court, which was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, a decision affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that pension is a deferred portion of compensation and a property right, and that the High Court erred in not considering the widow’s substantive entitlement. Consequently, the Court ordered the lump‑sum amount to be computed and paid to the widow, adjusting the earlier refund, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the widow is entitled to the lump‑sum benefit under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, despite the abolition of the provision after the pensioner’s death.
Whether the Patna High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the widow.
Whether pension constitutes a property right enforceable under law.

Legislation cited

Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948s. 3-E

Subjects

pensionlump sumsocial securityproperty rightjurisdictionCoal Mines Pension Schemewidow's rightsretirement benefits

Judgment

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 403 403

VEENA PANDEY A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6953 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021 B
[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 C
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
D
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 E
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
F
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 G
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 H
403
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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]
D 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.
E 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
F 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,
G 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,

H
VEENA PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 405

Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Riju Raj Singh Jamwal, Dipankar Singh, A
Ms. Prema Priyadarshi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave granted. B
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 C
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 the Pension Scheme, 1998 effective from 31.03.1998. Since
the employee opted to receive 90% of the total admissible amount of the
pension during his lifetime, on his death on 12.01.2011, the widow of the D
pensioner became entitled to receive in lump sum, an amount equal to
100 times his full monthly pension, in addition to family pension. The
record shows that Rs.7091/- p.m. was sanctioned to the employee as
Basic Pension under the Pension Scheme, 1998 w.e.f 01.06.2004 and
10% of his Basic Pension i.e Rs. 788/- p.m. was deposited with the E
department.
3. Following the employee’s death on 12.01.2011, as per the Pension
Scheme, 1998 the widow of the pensioner made claim for a sum
equivalent to 100 times the full monthly pension of her husband and vide
letter dated 30.09.2012, she applied for payment of the lump sum amount F
in pursuance of para 15(1)(b) read with para 15(2) of the Pension
Scheme, 1998.
4. The appellant’s representation was however rejected. In the
letter dated 22.01.2013 of the Regional Commissioner of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund Organization (‘CMPFO’ for short) it was stated that the
G
pensioner had opted for payment of 90% pension under para 15 (1)(b)
of the Pension Scheme, 1998, but the aforesaid provision was abolished
w.e.f 21.02.2011. It was also intimated that the 10% surrendered amount
had been refunded to all pensioners with interest under the order dated
30.01.2012 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner.
H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 5. The appellant was refunded the surrendered amount of 10%
with interest (Rs. 36,938/-) along with widow pension arrears (Rs.12,351/
-), in total Rs. 49,289/-, whereas she claimed a higher sum under the
now abolished provisions of the Pension Scheme.
6. Aggrieved by the above stand of the employer, the appellant
B moved the High Court of Patna for disbursal of the pensionary benefits
and also to quash the letter dated 22.01.2013 of the Regional
Commissioner, CMPFO whereunder, it had been communicated that, no
other payment is due to the appellant. Her C.W.J.C No.9837/2014 was
however dismissed as not maintainable by the learned Single Judge on
the ground that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction
C of the High Court of Patna. This order was affirmed by the Division
Bench by dismissal of the appellant’s LPA No.701/2017 with similar
observation that the services rendered by the pensioner were outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court and hence the writ
petition filed by the widow of the pensioner was not maintainable. These
D orders of the High Court are impugned in this Appeal.
7. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, the learned ASG appearing for the
respondents.
8. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, points out from the additional
E counter affidavit of respondent no. 6 that pursuant to the administrative
order dated 04.03.2011 of the Commissioner, CMPFO, the appellant’s
case was settled on 18.04.2011 and 10% surrendered value of monthly
pension along with applicable interest thereon was refunded.
9. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
F would however contend that the lumpsum (100 times of full monthly
pension) became payable to the widow on the death of her husband,
who, subsequent to his retirement, had opted for the same under the
Pension Scheme. The counsel further submits that the appellant as the
widow of the employee is suffering as she has been non suited by the
G court on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
10. It is necessary to note that the Coal Mines Pension Scheme,
1998 was framed as a measure of social security for ensuring socio-
economic justice for the employees in the coal sector under the powers
conferred by Section 3-E of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.
H
VEENA PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 407
[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

11. Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion of the A
compensation1 for rendering long years of service. It is a hard-earned
benefit accruing to an employee and has been held to be in the nature of
property by this Court, in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra
Kumar Srivastava and Another2.
12. While considering the appellant’s case, the High Court did not B
however 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.
C
13. In the above peculiar circumstances of this 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, we consider it appropriate to pass
necessary orders in her favor in this proceeding itself. Resultantly, the
sum due and payable under the Pension scheme be computed and the D
same is ordered to be disbursed to the appellant. The amount earlier
refunded to the appellant be adjusted suitably during the remittance
process. The respondent/ employer should do the needful in terms of
this order, within 8 weeks from today.
14. The appeal is allowed with the above order. Respective costs E
to be borne by the parties.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.

F

G

1
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association & ors Vs. Union of India & ors,
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 664
2
(2013) 12 SCC 210 H