Failure of state to regularise employee no good reason to deny pension: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that failure, neglect or omission of the state government in not conferring permanent status to an employee despite an order from the Labour Court cannot afford any justification for the state to take advantage of their own wrong in depriving pensionary benefits.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the Madhya Pradesh government to provide retiral benefits to the family of the deceased employee, who was in service for 38 years.

After hearing advocate Dushyant Parashar for the appellant, legal representatives of Madanlal Sharma, the court noted Madanlal was in service right from 1974 till March 31, 2012 when he retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., for almost 38 years.

The bench also found that the state government has been unsuccessful in having the findings of the Labour Court of October 12, 1999 reversed even after litigation travelled to this court for the first time.

"It was highly improper on the part of the High Court's division bench to embark on an inquiry as to whether Madanlal had been inducted in service as per rules or as to whether he had been granted the status of a permanent employee. However, to be fair to the division bench, we ought to record once again that it might not have been aware of dismissal of the (previous) special leave petition (on grant of permanent status to him)," the bench said, in a recent order.

The court also noted the Labour Court directed that Madanlal should be classified as a permanent employee, and the respondent—the state government—in their appeal petition before the Industrial Court at Indore had taken a point that Madanlal cannot be regularised in the absence of a sanctioned post.

"It is, therefore, clear that the respondents were well and truly aware of the implications of the order of the Labour Court which required them to regularise his service on a post," it said.

The court felt if no post was available then, Madanlal was required to be placed on a supernumerary post till such time a sanctioned post became available where he could be accommodated.

"The neglect/failure/omission of the respondents in not conferring permanent status to Madanlal cannot afford any justification or good reason for them to take advantage of their own wrong in depriving Madanlal of his pensionary benefits," the court said.

The court held that the single judge bench was perfectly right in allowing the writ petition and holding that Madanlal was entitled to pensionary benefits.

The court, therefore, set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the single judge bench.

Since Madanlal has passed away, the retiral benefits to which he was entitled, treating him to be a permanent employee, as well as benefit on account of family pension should be released in favour of his heirs of legal representatives together with 6 per cent interest from the date of his retirement within three months, the court ordered.