For the grant of invalid pension, minimum qualifying years of service cannot be ignored

Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 31st March 2020

State of Odisha & Ors. v. Manju Naik Civil Appeal No. 9204 of 2019

Facts of the case:

The Respondent filed an O.A. before the Tribunal, praying for fixation of pay of her late husband and for disbursal of his accrued financial benefits until his retirement on being mentally incapacitated. She also filed for sanction of family pension from the date of death of her husband. The Tribunal held that the applicant’s husband was entitled to invalid pension under Rule 39 of Civil Services (Pension) Rules. This order was challenged by the state in the High Court of Orissa. However, the High Court held that a reasoned order was passed by the Tribunal, thus they dismissed the writ petition leaving the order left undisturbed. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised:

1. Whether the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Pension Rules can be ignored for the purpose of consideration of invalid pension under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules.
2. Whether the Tribunal or the High Court erred in directing invalid pension for a government employee who did not have the qualifying service, prescribed under the Pension Rules.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court noted that the applicant was not eligible because Rule 39 itself is read along with Rule 47 and 56 of the Pension Rules. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. Here the employee did not satisfy the requirement of qualifying service and therefore the invalid pension could not have been ordered for him, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules.

The Apex Court stated that an employee becomes entitled to pension by stint of his long service for the employer and, therefore, it should be seen as a reward for toiling hard and long for the employer. The Pension Rules provide for a qualifying service of 10 years for such entitlement. When the question arises as to how certain provisions of the Pension Rules are to be understood, it would be appropriate to read the provision in its context which would mean reading the statute as a whole.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent never prayed for invalid pension in her O.A. and yet the Tribunal and High Court have granted her unclaimed relief. Such additional munificence, in addition to the job provided to the respondent under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme for the sustenance of the deceased’s family was unwarranted and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal is thus allowed.