Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand v. Project Building, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6300 of 2018 Suresh Singh, aged about 74 years, S/o late Jagdish Singh, R/o Indrapuri Road No. 1, P.O. – Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Versus Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 3. Municipal Commissioner Ranchi, Municipal Corporation, Kutechery Road, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. … … Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 4121 of 2021 1. Awadh Bihari Tiwari, aged about 70 years, S/o late Raghunandan Tiwari, R/o Shradhanand Road, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. -Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 2. Vishwanath Pathak, aged about 68 years, S/o late Madan Gopal Pathak, R/o Vikas Nagar, Bank Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo, District – Ranchi. 3. Pradip Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 67 years, S/o late Basan Kumkar Mukherjee, R/o Kailashpuri, Itki Road, Bajra, P.O. – Bajra, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 4. Rambachan Singh, aged about 72 years, S/o late Vishn Singh, R/o Indrapuri, Road No. 13, P.O. – Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District = Ranchi. 5. Dinu Mahto, aged about 75 years, S/o late Thuthan Mahto, R/o Argora, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District – Ranchi. 6. Prabhu Dayal Sahu, aged about 67 years, S/o late Hirna Mahto, R/o Argora, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District – Ranchi. 7. Kaleshwar Ram, aged about 71 years, S/o late Thuthan Mahto, R/o Argora, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District – Ranchi. 8. Md. Nasim, aged about 72 years, S/o late Md. Hanif, R/o Hindpiri, 1st Street, P.O. & P.S.- Hindpiri, District – Ranchi. 9. Girdhari Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o late Shyam Narayan Singh, R/o Dhobi Mohalla, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 10. Bipta Mahto, aged about 71 years, S/o late Harak Nath Mahto, R/o Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 11. Md. Shafique, aged about 69 years, S/o late Md. Jamir, R/o Nijam Nagar, Hindpiri, P.O. & P.S.- Hindpiri, District – Ranchi. 12. Laxmi Prasad, aged about 78 years, S/o late Sukhdeo Sahay, R/o Kanke Road, Choudi Basti, Kanke, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 13. Habibula, aged about 71 years, S/o late Alibull, R/o Bishambar Babu Lane, Daily Market, Hindpiri, P.O. & P.S.- Hindpiri, District – Ranchi.
Legal Reasoning
pension, is not in dispute in light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6066 of 2012 , in compliance of which, a decision has been taken by the Respondent-Authorities vide order dated 16.08.2021 to grant has already informed that decision has been taken by the respondents vide order dated 16.08.2021 to grant pensionary benefits to all the eligible employees w.e.f. 12.08.2017 and not from their actual date of retirement. It is further submitted that the employees entitled for pensionary benefits from the date of retirement and not from the imaginary date as per the suitability of the Respondent- Authorities. 7. Learned counsel submits that law is very clear, retiral benefit is not a bounty to be paid at the sweet will of the respondents rather it is the constitutional right of employees to get the same when they retire. If they are made dis-entitled for the payment of pensionary benefits, the same amounts to violation of the constitutional provision enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 19. 8. Learned counsel submit that this Court has earlier directed the respondents to take a decision and respondents had taken a decision to pay pensionary benefits in view of the Patna Municipal Corporation Pension Rules 43 and 44. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on
Arguments
14. Bijay Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 72 years, S/o late Jag Mohan Prasad, R/o Gonsai Toli, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District – Ranchi. 15. Sajnandan Pandit, aged about 68 years, S/o late Anum Pandit, R/o New Madhukam P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 16. N. K. Lal, aged about 72 years, S/o late Sachindra Lal, R/o Edlahatu, P.O. – Edhalahatu, P.S. – Bariatu, District -Ranchi. 1 17. Rajendra Ram, aged about 71 years, S/o late Ram Briksh Ram, R/o Kanke Block, Arsande, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District- Ranchi. 18. Sanjeevan Singh, aged about 72 years, S/o late Sakaldeep Singh, R/o Jaiprakash Nagar, Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 19. Govardhan Ram, aged about 73 years, S/o late Mangal Ram, R/o Gandhi Chowk, P.O. – G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 20. Birsa Oraon, aged about 66 years, S/o late Fuchwa Oraon, R/o Kailash Nagar, New Madhukam, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 21. Ghashila Bakhla, aged about 72 years, S/o late Budhu Bakhla, R/o Lodhma, karra (Sukhdeo Bagan), P.O. – Lodhma, P.S. – Dhurwa, District -Ranchi. 22. Ramchandra Mahto, aged about 70 years, S/o late Lakhi Mahto, R/o Joraar, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District – Ranchi. 23. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 69 years, S/o late Lakshmi Prasad, R/o 41B Ram Krishna Apartment, P.O. – G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 24. Durga Prasad Kumhar, aged about 65 years, S/o late Mutu Ram Kumhar, R/o Kumhar Toli, P.O. – Harmu, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 25. Sabir Ali, aged about 65 years, S/o late Md. Yasin, R/o Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi. 26. Pankaj Kumar, aged about 79 years, S/o Parmeshwar Ram, R/o Kanke Block, Kumar Bag Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 27. Prakash Kumar Shukla, aged about 70 years, S/o late Arvind Shukla, R/o Hindpiri, III Street, P.O. & P.S.- Hindpiri, District – Ranchi. 28. Hemant Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 70 years, S/o Bindeshwar Prasad, R/o Hehal, Devi Mandap Road, P.O. – Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 29. Moti Lal Sahu, aged about 70 years, S/o late Dasu Sahu, R/o Tikli Toli, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 30. Rajkishore Nayak, aged about 69 years, S/o late Kishun Nayak, R/o Kanke Road, (Dhawan Nagar), P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 31. Md. Hassan aged about 72 years, S/o late Katar Hassan R/o Pathalkudwa, Church Lane, P.O. – Lalpur, P.S. – Sadar, District – Ranchi. 32. Sanat Kumar Ghosh, aged about 67 years, S/o late N. N. Ghosh, R/o Lower Hinoo, P.O. – Hinoo, P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi. 33. Badeshwar Pandey, aged about 67yers, S/o late Devnandan Pandey, R/o Ekta Nagar, Booty More, P.O. – Booty, P.S. – Morabadi, District – Ranchi. 34. Banshidhar Mishra, aged about 65 years, S/o late Kaladhar Mishra, R/o House No. 7/80 Harmu Colony, Argora, P.O. – Harmu, P.S. – Argora, District – Ranchi. 35. Jayant Prasad Keshri, aged about 71 years, S/o late Rameshwar Prasad Keshri, R/o Chutia Main Road, Madhya Chutia, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District – Ranchi. 36. Md. Mokhtar, aged about 67 years, S/o late Md. Ishaque, R/o Pathalkudwa, Lower Bazar, Purulia Road, P.O. – Lalpur, P.S. – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi. 37. Vijay Ram, aged about 68 years, S/o late Bihari Ram, R/o Kumhartoli, Purulia Road, P.O. – Lalpur, P.S. – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi. 38. Kameshwar Prasad, aged about 85 years, S/o late Kashi Lal, R/o Karamtoli, P.O. – Morabadi, P.S. – Lalpur, District – Ranchi. 2 39. Md. Iliash Ansari, aged about 67 years, S/o late Md. Yunus Ansari, R/o Rodo . P.O. – Anraparo, P.S. – Torpa, District – Ranchi. 40. Renu Devi, aged about 71 years, W/o late Surju Ram, R/o Ketari bagan, Ghat road, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District – Ranchi. 41. Daybanti Devi, aged about 67 years, W/o late Bhengraj Ram, R/o Ketari Bagan, Ghat Road, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District – Ranchi. 42. Sahdeo Lohar, aged about 74 years, S/o late Hotwaar Lohar, R/o D.D. Bhagat Kocha, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi. 43. Kailash Bihari Pandey, aged about 75 years, S/o late Braj Bihar Pandey, R/o Kokar, Tiril Bariatu, P.O. – Kokar, P.S. – Bariatu, District – Ranchi. 44. Md. Jamal, aged about 66 years, S/o late Tat Mohammad, R/o Pathalkudwa, Lower Bazar, P.O. – Lalpur, P.S. – Lower Bazar, District -Ranchi. 45. Ram Naresh Kha, aged about 68 years, S/o late Purandhar Jha, R/o New Jagannath Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. 46. Goreti Toppo, aged about 66 years, W/o late Subodh Toppo, R/o Tetar Toli, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District – Ranchi. 47. Ali Akhtar, aged about 67 years, S/o late Abdul Gaffar, R/o Tangra Toli, Kanke, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 48. Sheikh Israfil, aged bout 77 years, S/o late Sahadat Ali, R/o Bijulia, Ratu, P.O. & P.S.- Ratu, District – Ranchi. 49. Brij Bhushan Dubey, aged about 72 years, S/o late Shatrudhan Dubey, R/o Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District – Ranchi. 50. Narendra Kumar Singh, aged about 67 years, S/o late Shyamnand Singh, R/o Biraj Nagar, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District – Ranchi. 51. Vinod Prasad, aged about 78 years, S/o late Ram Khelawan Sahay, R/o Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi. 52. Sanjivan Kachchap, aged about 67 years, S/o late Banas Ropan Kachhap, R/o Purani Ranchi, Akhra Chowk, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 53. Rambali Yadav, aged about 65 years, S/o Sakaldeo Yadav, R/o Raj Nagar, Power House, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District – Ranchi. 54. Dr. Prakash Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 69 years, S/o late Bindhyachal Prasad, R/o C-38 Park Road, 1B, Ashok Nagar, P.O. – Ashok Nagar, P.S. – Argora, District – Ranchi. 55. Dr. Madhuri Tiwari, aged about 70 years, d/o late Sri Bhagwan Tiwari, C/o Dr. H.D. Tripathi, R/o House No. 372/C, Professor Colony, Karamtoli, P.O. Petitioners & P.S.- Lalpur, District – Ranchi. … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, P.O. – G.P.O. P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK --- : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For the Petitioners 3 : Mr. Jay Shanker Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate --- For the Respondents For the RMC 19/21st October 2024 Since issues involved in both the writ petitions, are same and similar, these are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. 3. Heard the Learned counsel for the parties at length. Petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 6300 of 2018 has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to revise pension of the petitioner taking into consideration the last pay drawn by the petitioner at the time of their retirement and to determine the pension in light of the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 6066 of 2012 as well as release the arrears of pension of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date of retirement. 4. Petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 4121 of 2021 have prayed for quashment of order passed by CEO, Municipal corporation, Ranchi, dated 16.08.2021 by which a decision has been taken to grant pension as per last pay drawn w.e.f. 12.08.2017 without considering the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 6066 of 2012. 5. For the sake of brevity, facts of the lead case i.e., W.P.(S). No. 6300 of 2018 has been taken into consideration. The petitioner was appointed in Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the year 1965 and after rendering long services, retired on 31.01.2002 and the pension of the petitioner was fixed at the time of retirement as Rs.3800/- but the basis for which, has not been explained even after repeated queries made by the petitioner. The salary of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs. 4545 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under 5th Pay Revision. Since the petitioner was in service upto 31.01.2002, the expected increase in pay including the expected dearness allowance would come to about Rs. 7717/- and 50 % of the same will be Rs. 3858/- which should have been the basic 4 pension on 01.02.2002 as per the calculation made by the petitioner. Further, the basic pension in the 6th Pay Revision should come to Rs. 8719 when Rs. 3858 is multiplied with the multiplication factor of 2.26 w.e.f., 01.01.2006. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners vociferously argue that the issue of payment of pension of the petitioner regarding payment of
Decision
W.P.(S). No. 459 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 14th December 2020. He further submits that even similarly situated employees of the State of Bihar working in the Patna Municipal Corporation, were extended the benefits from the date of their retirement and, as such, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit. 9. Learned counsel submits that since a decision has already been taken to pay the pensionary benefits, no further direction is required to 5 be passed by this Court regarding entitlement of pensionary benefits. It is the cut-off date which has been fixed illegally and arbitrarily by the Respondent-Authorities, has to be looked into and an appropriate direction is required to be passed to pay the pensionary benefits to all the petitioners from the date of their retirement and not from the imaginary date which has been fixed to be 12.08.2021 by the Respondent -Authorities 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent-RMC Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh justifying the impugned order submits that admittedly in view of the order passed by this Court, petitioners have been extended pensionary benefits at enhanced rate. He further submits that though a decision has been taken but till date there is no approval by the State Government for payment of enhanced pensionary benefits and in absence of any approval, the same cannot be extended to the petitioners or similarly situated persons of the Municipal Corporation. It has also been brought to the notice, that as per rule, which was in existence, petitioners have been extended the benefit for which they were entitled for. He further submits that huge burden will be there on the State exchequer and, as such, without approval of the State Government, the benefits cannot be extended to the petitioners. 11. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the partis, this Court is of the view that it would be apt before delving deep into the matter to consider the relevant rules particularly, Rule 19, 43 and 44 of the PMC, Municipal Corporation Officers and Servant’s Pension Rule, 1986, which is quoted herein below:- Rule 19 – The amount of pension to a corporation employee who completed the maximum qualifying service of thirty-three years, i.e. sixty-six completed six months period will be fixed as follows:- Pensionable Pay Amount of Monthly Pension (a) Up to first Rs. 1,000 50% of pensionable pay (b) Net Rs. 500 of Pensionable Pay 45% of pensionable pay (c) Balance of pensionable pay Above Rs. 1,500. 40% of pensionable pay 6 Rule 43- Any increase or relief either temporary or permanent in pension as sanctioned by Government to the Corporation employees over and above what is already prescribed above will be admissible to the Corporation employees and the Corporation will be bound to pay it. Rule 44- The amount of pension (Rate or Slab) when revised in case of Government servant or after the date of adoption this rule be admissible to Corporation employees. 12. The issue is no more res-integra that petitioners / employees of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), are entitled for pensionary benefits and the legal issues which are to be decided in the instant case, is whether they are entitled for pensionary benefits in view of the Rule 19 or the enhanced pension or in view of Rule 43 and 44 of the Patna Municipal Corporation. 13. It is settled law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, that pension is a right and if there is a statutory provisions mentioned, the employees or his legal heirs cannot be denied pension or family pension. In case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 and in case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that pension is not a bounty given at the mercy of the State, rather, it is a constitutional right which employee derives and as such, petitioners are entitled for pension. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held as under: “30. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India2. It was held that such a right constitutes “property” and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in letters patent appeal by the Union of India. Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant Singh3 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is “property” within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and 7 that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as “property” cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority. 31. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. State of Punjab4. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show-cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was that under such not prepared circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show-cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. to agree with the majority 32. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde5 had to consider the question whether a “cash grant” is “property” within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing “it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property”. 33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property 8 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 property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. 15. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 has taken the similar issue, relevant paragraphs of which is reproduced herein below: 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 Bihar8 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.9 28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education11 a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want. 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 9 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. 36. Having set out clearly the society which we propose to set up, the direction in which the State action must move, the welfare State which we propose to build up, the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State and the assurance in the Directive Principles of State Policy especially of security in old age at least to those who have rendered useful service during their active years, it is indisputable, nor was it questioned, that pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and in furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a fillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare State because by pension the socialist goal of security of cradle to grave is assured at least when it is mostly needed and least available, namely, in the fall of life. 10 16. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Viju, W/o Manohar Sawle Vs. Secretary, Govt. of India, reported in 2005 (5) Bom CR 360. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “14. It is clear from para 16 of the 1995 Scheme that upon the death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner as well as her children would have been entitled to family pension, if the husband of the petitioner would have been asked the choice to opt for the 1995 Scheme. If the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are to be accepted, it will lead to an anomalous situation. Had the husband of the petitioner died between 1st April, 1993 and 15th November, 1995, he would have automatically been deemed to be the member of the 1995 Scheme in view of sub-paragraph (1) of para 7 of the 1995 Scheme. Had he been surviving even today, he would have been still in a position to opt for the 1995 Scheme. It is only on account of failure on the part of the employer to seek particulars from the husband of the petitioner as required under para 18, the petitioner would be deprived of the benefits under the 1995 Scheme. The said Act and 1995 Scheme framed thereunder being social legislation, we do not find that the intention of the Legislature could have been to lead to such an anomalous situation. We, therefore, find that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the 1995 Scheme on the condition that she deposits the amount received by her husband under 1971 Scheme. 15. It is pertinent to note that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had deposited the said amount along with interest as asked for, which was also duly received by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and only on the rejection of the petitioner's claim, the said amount was refunded back to the petitioner, that too after two years of rejection and without any interest thereon. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the case of State of Orissa (cited supra) is concerned, in our view, said case is not applicable to facts of the present case. In the case before the Apex Court, by the time, subsequent notification was issued, the petitioner's husband had already died and as such the Apex Court observed that said Scheme could not have been made applicable to the husband of the petitioner. However, in the present case, 1995 Scheme has come into effect on 16th November, 1995 and the husband of the petitioner has died much later i.e. on 13th June, 1998. In view of provision of para 6(c), since he had retired between the period 1st April, 1995 and 15th November, 1995, he was very much entitled to receive the benefits of the 1995 Scheme. However, only on account of failure of the employer, he has been deprived of the benefits of the 1995 Scheme. We find support from the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Poonamal (Smt.) etc. (cited supra) as under : "It is not necessary to examine the concept of pension. As already held by this Court in numerous judgments that pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. Deoki 11 Nandan Prosad v. State of Bihar, 1971 (suppl) SCR 634 : (AIR 1971 SC 1409) State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 3 SCR 360 : (AIR 1975 SC 667) and D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon in D. S. Nakara's judgment. At the hearing of this group of matters we pointed out that since the family pension scheme has become non-contributory effective from September 22, 1977 any attempt at denying its benefit to widows and dependents of Government servants who had not taken advantage of the 1964 liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative of Article 14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on the ground that the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated because that would be introducing an invidious classifications among those who would be entitled to similar treatment." 16. Insofar as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Hansoli Devi and Ors., reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273, Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and Ors. v. State of T. N. and Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 722 and State of Orissa and Anr. v. Prativa Ghosh and Anr., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 587, are concerned, there cannot be doubt that when the intention of the Legislature is clear and unambiguous, this Court should not resort to supply casus omissus. However, in the present case, we are not providing any casus omissus to the provisions of the 1995 Scheme. Rather from interpretation of the 1995 Scheme, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the 1995 Scheme since her husband was entitled to become its member. In that view of the matter we find that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the aforesaid cases, is not well placed. 17. The issue involved in this writ petition has been set at rest by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6066 of 2012 [Ashok Kumar Sinha & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others] and that also in LPA No. 459 of 2018 [Bisheshwar Nand Goswami Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another]. 12 18. After elaborate and detailed discussions whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced pensionary benefits, this Court directed the respondent-authorities in W.P.(S). No. 6066 of 2012 which is quoted as under:- 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the various affidavits filed on behalf of the respective parties, this Cour feels it expedient to direct the respondents to calculate and fix the pension of the petitioners on the basis of last pay drawn and released the pension and arrears in accordance with Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act read with Jharkhand Municipal Service Cadre Rule, 2014 and other relevant circulars as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 19. The Court directed the respondents to calculate and fix the pension for the petitioners on the basis of last pay drawn and release the pension and arears in accordance with Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act. 20. In view of the specific direction issued by this Court, respondents have come out with a decision that the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced pension but have fixed a cut-off date i.e., 12.08.2017. The respondent-authorities had erroneously taken a view that from the date the order of this Court was passed shall be cut-off date for grant of pension to the corporation employees. On this point, the law is very clear that employees are entitled for pensionary benefit from the date of retirement and not from any imaginary/artificial date. Taking advantage of the date on which the Court passed order does not entitle the respondents to make the petitioners dis-entitle to receive the pension from the date of their retirement. In view of the discussion made above, the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Respondent- Authorities is modified to the extend that the employees of the corporation shall be entitle to receive pension w.e.f. date of their retirement and not from 12.08.2017. 21. It is further made clear in view of law laid down by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3962 of 2016 (Jhakrhand Retired University Teachers Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) that each and every employee is not required to knock the door of this Court for getting the benefits once the issue has been decided. It is always open 13 to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to all the eligible employees from the date of their retirement. 22. It is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh that unless and until they receive the amount from the State, they are not in a position to release the enhanced pensionary benefits to the petitioners. From perusal of Rule-43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, it is crystal clear that it is the Corporation which is liable to pay the pensionary benefits to its employees. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- RMC is the internal issue between the Corporation and the State Government. Accordingly, the respondent-RMC is directed to pay the remaining amount of pensionary benefits to its employees within a period of three months from the date of the receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Aditi (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 14