In a significant legal battle of Sudhir Santuji Murkute v/s State of Maharashtra & Others, a retired librarian has been granted his rightful retirement benefits after serving almost four decades at a college managed by a private trust. The petition filed by the petitioner, who had worked for 38 years without objection from the state education authorities, highlights a broader issue of justice for retired employees whose pension claims are unjustly delayed or denied. The case sheds light on how the state authorities, despite not raising any procedural objections during the petitioner’s long tenure, delayed retirement benefits due to technicalities only after his superannuation.
Background: A Career Spanning 38 Years
The petitioner, appointed as a library clerk in 1982 by Respondent No. 3, a private trust running a college, began a career in higher education that saw him promoted to assistant librarian in 1989 and eventually to the post of librarian in 1999. His salary was always subject to approval from the state’s Joint Director of Higher Education (Respondent No. 2). His dedication and service were acknowledged, but when he retired on January 30, 2020, a series of procedural issues were raised, blocking his rightful pension and other retirement benefits.
Despite submitting all required documents for retirement benefits in August 2020, the petitioner faced resistance when the education department officials raised questions about the petitioner’s qualifications and the transfer process, stating that his appointment did not follow the required statutory procedures. The petitioner had accumulated significant qualifications, including M.Com, B.Lib. (Sci.), M.Lib. (Sci.), and M.Phil, but these were not enough to satisfy the authorities, despite no previous objections raised during his 38 years of service.
Legal Submissions and State’s Objection:
In his submissions, the petitioner argued that, after serving the institution for nearly four decades, his eligibility for retirement benefits should not be questioned. Furthermore, he contended that the state’s refusal to grant pension was unreasonable, especially after years of uninterrupted service with various deductions made from his salary for retirement benefits. The state authorities, however, argued that his appointment did not comply with the prescribed statutory procedures, including an issue with the transfer from one college to another without approval from the university.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling:
The court, while acknowledging the state's procedural concerns, emphasized that the petitioner’s service record was impeccable, and at no point did the state raise any objections about his eligibility or the appointment process. Moreover, the Joint Director had even issued a certificate confirming the petitioner’s pay matrix and the total basic pay as part of his retirement benefits, yet the authorities later changed their stance after the petitioner’s retirement.
The court stated that denying retirement benefits on technical grounds after 38 years of service would amount to unfair treatment and manifest injustice. It further emphasized that pension is a right, not a discretionary gift, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in cases such as D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). The right to pension is governed by rules, not the employer’s will, and any failure to release retirement benefits after an employee’s superannuation could violate constitutional rights, particularly under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and livelihood.
The court also invoked the doctrine of "legitimate expectation," as the petitioner had reasonably anticipated receiving his retirement benefits given the long service and the deductions made from his salary over the years. Any denial at this stage would not only be legally untenable but also morally unjust.
Final Judgment and Impact:
In a decision that aligned with the principles of fairness and justice, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the state education authorities to release the pension and all other retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, within three months. The ruling emphasized that the refusal to grant retirement benefits was illegal and contrary to the principles of justice.
In conclusion, the court’s decision in favor of the librarian not only restores his retirement benefits but also sets a strong legal precedent for ensuring that similar claims are processed fairly and promptly, safeguarding the rights of long-serving employees in their twilight years.
