‘No bounty, grace’: Gauhati High Court asks State to form panel over pension to PWD workers with 20 years service

Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution, said the Guahati High Court. (Image generated using AI)

Findings

• Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution.
• The most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age.
• Pension 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
• The apex court has highlighted this consistent exploitation of employees under government departments who are compelled to render services for consistent and long periods without their cases being taken up or considered for regularization.
• The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that initial employment status shall not be used as a bar or a restriction towards the entitlement of the pensionary and retiral benefits of such employees.

Decision

• Despite its strong observations on the nature of pension, the high court held that it was bound by the division bench ruling in Upen Das, which continues to hold the field.
• Consequently, the petitioners’ prayer for pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, was rejected.
• However, the court did not leave the matter there.
• Taking note of the contention of the workers who served the state for most of their productive lives, the court directed the Assam government to frame a scheme providing financial benefits in lieu of pension for the petitioners and other similarly placed employees.
• The court directed that a high-level committee, headed by an officer of the rank of additional chief secretary, be constituted.
• Senior officers from the PWD, finance, personnel and law departments will be included.
• The committee shall formulate a concrete scheme within three months.
• The chief secretary has been tasked with ensuring compliance.

Background

• The petitioners were appointed between 1993 and 1996 as work-charged employees across various PWD divisions in Assam.
• They continued uninterruptedly until superannuation between 2018 and 2021, performing duties indistinguishable from regular Grade-III and Grade-IV employees.
• Despite being paid regular scales, transferred across divisions, maintaining service rolls and formally superannuating through departmental orders, they were informed at retirement that they were not entitled to pension, as they had never been regularised against sanctioned posts.
• Their representations dated June 23, 2024, seeking pensionary benefits evoked no response, forcing them to move the high court.

Petitioners’ argument

• Senior Advocate P K Goswami, appearing for the retirees, argued that the state could not take advantage of its own failure to regularise employees after extracting decades of uninterrupted service.
• Relying on Assam government office memorandums dated September 12, 1996, and September 6, 2003, the counsel submitted that temporary government employees completing 20 years of continuous service are eligible for pension, even without confirmation against permanent posts.
• He further relied on a line of Supreme Court judgments to argue that the initial label of employment, muster roll or work-charge cannot be used as a tool to deny pension where employees have worked continuously till retirement.

State’s stand

• Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General P Nayak, appearing for the state of Assam, contended that pension under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, requires employment against a sanctioned post.
• The AAG argued that work-charged and muster roll engagements are inherently scheme-based and non-cadre, and therefore do not confer any right to regularisation or pension.
• Reliance was placed on a division bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in State of Assam v. Upen Das (2017), which held that such categories of employees are not entitled to pensionary benefits.