Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) On a reading of the impugned order dated 20.3.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2014, what appears to us, is that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the right of the employee to receive pension immediately preceding the day the employee superannuates from service. The debate regarding nature of pension; whether it is purely gratuitous or a reward for past services, was finally settled in "Deokinandan Prasad v/s. State of Bihar and others" : (1971) 2 SCC 330, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right of an employee to receive pension is akin to right to property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order, the State cannot withhold the same.
(2.) The concept of retiral benefits to a citizen has evolved on the consideration that an employee, who rendered service during the useful years of his life, must not be left to penury in his old age. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "D.S. Nakara and others v/s. Union of India", 1983 (47) FLR 42 (SC) held as under: "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 behavior even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure."
(3.) The right to receive Leave Encashment earned on retirement has been held, in "Union of India v/s. Gurnam Singh" : (1982) 2 SCC 314, a condition of service. Equally true is the concept that Gratuity and Provident Fund are retiral benefits, which are governed by various statutes. The various enactments on the subject are in pursuance of the Constitutional goal enshrined under Article 37, Article 41 and Article 43 of the Constitution of India. In "Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and others" : (1984) 3 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "17. Can such social security measure be denuded of its efficacy and enforcement by so interpreting the relevant rules that the workman could be denied the same at the absolute discretion of the employer notwithstanding the fact that he or she has earned the same by long continuous service? If Rule 10 is interpreted as has been done by the High Court, such would be the stark albeit unpalatable outcome. It is therefore necessary to take a leaf out of history bearing on the question of retiral benefits like pension to which gratuity is equated. In Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. v/s. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor Sangh, this Court observed that : "a scheme of gratuity and a scheme of pension have much in common. Gratuity is a lump sum payment while pension is a period payment of a stated sum". Undoubtedly both have to be earned by long and continuous service.";