Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mrs. Sushama C. Pendharkar, was appointed as a Research Officer by Pune University (now Savitribai Phule Pune University) vide appointment order dated 18.3.1985. She served in the University's Educational Media Research Centre until her superannuation on 31.10.2003. After retirement, she did not receive pension for 5 years. She issued a legal notice, but the University replied on 12.6.2008 disowning her engagement and employment. Aggrieved, she filed a Writ Petition in 2009. The University argued that she was not a regular employee but a project-based employee, and that her appointment was not approved by the University Grants Commission. The Court examined the appointment order, service book, and other records, and found that the Petitioner was appointed by the Registrar on a regular pay scale with allowances, and her service book showed continuous service. The Court held that the University cannot deny employment after accepting her services for 18 years. The Court directed the University to compute and pay pension and other retiral benefits within 8 weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until payment. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Right to Pension - Pension is a right and not a bounty, and must be paid promptly upon retirement - The Petitioner, a Research Officer, superannuated on 31.10.2003 but did not receive pension for 5 years - The University disowned her engagement despite an appointment order and service records - Held that the University cannot deny employment after accepting services for 18 years, and pension must be paid with interest (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Appointment - Proof of Employment - Appointment order and service records are conclusive proof of employment - The Petitioner was appointed by an order dated 18.3.1985 signed by the Registrar, and her service book and other records confirm her employment - The University's denial was contrary to documentary evidence - Held that the appointment order and service records establish the employer-employee relationship (Paras 3-6). C) Service Law - Delay in Payment - Interest - Delay in payment of pension attracts interest - The Petitioner waited 5 years for pension after superannuation - The University's conduct was unjustified - Held that the Petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on arrears of pension (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits from Pune University, and whether the University can deny her employment status after she served for 18 years.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to compute and pay pension and other retiral benefits to the Petitioner within 8 weeks, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until payment.
Law Points
- Pension is a right
- not a bounty
- and must be paid promptly upon retirement
- University cannot disown employment after accepting services for 18 years
- Appointment order and service records are conclusive proof of employment
- Delay in payment of pension attracts interest
