CAT slams delay in pension benefits, calls it violation of SC rulings

Srinagar, Sep 13: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar Friday held that the right to pension was the right to property, saying depriving employees of pensionary benefits was a violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court (SC).

“We are saddened that despite the Supreme Court which is the highest court of the land holding that the right to pension is right to property and the same is not a bounty, despite that we come across cases where employees have been deprived of pension and pensionary benefits for decades together,” a bench comprising M S Latif, Member (J), and Prasant Kumar, Member (A), said.

The bench reiterated that any law laid down by the apex court which is the highest court of the land in terms of Article 141 of the constitution, was binding upon every authority and has to be treated as law laid down by the legislature.

The tribunal said this while hearing a plea related to the release of pensionary benefits of a retired forest official, Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, who retired from service over 12 years ago.

“A pensioner is not to be penalised or put to the rigour of delay for inter or intra-departmental wrangles, as a pensioner does not have the same strength or the official position he carried during his service. As on the day an employee superannuates, he loses his official status,” the tribunal said. “However that would not mean that a pensioner is to be looked down upon. He has to be treated with the same grace and even more.”

“We have no better word than to use; it is nothing less than only a callous attitude of the respondents. We all need to feel the pain of the applicant as to how he must be making both ends meet when the applicant has a wife and three daughters to look after,” the bench said.

It expressed its “deep anguish and pain” over the way the 70-year-old employee was being tossed by his employer and by the office of the Accountant General (AG).

“There seems to be a tug of war between the two departments. The employer says that the record has been dispatched to the Office of Accountant General whereas the office of Accountant General says that they have not received any such papers as such cannot finalize the pension case of the applicant,” the court said.

The tribunal observed that if the attitude (of the authorities) did not violate Article 21 of the constitution where in view of the departmental wrangles, the retired employee had been compelled to live a life of animal existence.

“We have no better word than to use, it is nothing less than only a callous attitude of the respondents. We all need to feel the pain of the applicant as to how he must be making both ends meet when the applicant has a wife and three daughters to look after,” the bench said.

The court’s remarks came after the remarks of the petitioner’s counsel Faizan Majid Bhat and senior Accounts Officers in the AG’s office, Inayatullah Wani, and Pankaj Saini.

“We deem it appropriate to direct the applicant, the two Senior Accounts Officers of the office of Accountant General as well as the Personnel Officer of the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to prepare an agenda and settle the controversy, however, strictly in accordance with the rules within a period of two weeks,” the tribunal said.

Immediately, after two weeks the tribunal said it (should) be made aware of the conclusion of the case. “(In case) there is any delay in settling the issue, the applicant, two Senior Accounts Officers as well as the Personnel Officer of the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to be present before this court,” the tribunal said and listed the matter for further hearing on October 8.