Official gets pension after 12 years of agony

Srinagar, Oct 20: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has urged the competent authorities to avoid delay in sanctioning pensions, saying it causes agony and pain to pensioners and even at times shatters their dreams.

“The endeavour of the competent authority should be always to prioritise sanctioning of pension, as delay certainly causes agony and pain to the pensioner and at times, even delay shatters his dreams which he has all along dreamt through his service career,” a bench comprising M S Latif, Member (J), and Prasant Kumar, Member (A), said.

The tribunal’s remarks came after it was informed by the Accountant General’s office through its counsel B A Zargar that the pension case of Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, was sanctioned immediately after it was received by it from the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.

Bhat, a Forest Department employee, who retired from service over 12 years ago had approached the tribunal through his counsel, Advocate Faizan Majeed Bhat seeking its intervention for releasing his pensionary benefits.

Earlier, the tribunal had expressed its dismay over the loggerheads the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Office of Accountant General were at on the issue.

The court had slammed the departments for the delay and noted, “What was to be done was just sanctioning the pension of a senior citizen who was deprived of his pension for the past 12 years.”

It had reiterated that the pensioners “deserve smiles, compassion, respect, and a soft gloves attitude”.

“The attitude of the respondents compelled this court to seek the presence of the responsible officers of the Accountant General’s office as well as from the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to seek compliance of the orders,” the court had said.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal said: “Pension is not a bounty but is rather a fundamental right, however, later on by virtue of the 44th Amendment Act of the Constitution of India, Right to Property became a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”

“The grievance of the applicant as such stands redressed,” the court said.

In response to the submission by the petitioner’s counsel that given the painful ordeal, it was fit for exemplary costs the authorities deserved to be  saddled as well as for interest, for the delay caused in sanctioning the pension, the tribunal said: “This court would not saddle the respondents with interest but would caution the respondents that in future pensioners are to be dealt with smile, compassion, grace and soft gloves attitude as every official whosoever it is high or low has to taste the day when he has to superannuate.”