Case Title: Shri. Anwarul Kadir v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court stated that rules governing pensions and other retirement benefits are helpful in character and should be generously applied. After 25 years of service, the petitioner, who had been the headmaster of the Rongrikimgre Deficit Upper Primary School in Baghmara, chose voluntary retirement and was let go by the government in 2005. The Meghalaya Death Cum Retirement Gratuity Rules, 1985 (DCRG) retirement dues have not been paid to the petitioner, which is the only complaint in the current writ suit.
In the instant case, the issue raised before the Meghalaya High Court was:
Why are the retirement dues under the DCRG not released to the petitioner?
With regard to this issue, the court acknowledged that the employee has a vested entitlement to pension and other terminal benefits as compensation for prior services done. The only justification given by the respondents for refusing to grant the DCRG to the petitioner is that employees who have retired voluntarily have only been considered eligible to receive DCRG since the Notification dated 06.04.2015 was issued amending the Meghalaya Aided School Employees (DCRG) Rules, 1985, and since the petitioner retired prior to the said amendment, he would not be entitled to DCRG.
An employee is generally entitled to the payment of gratuity on putting in the required qualifying service, there is no reason that the respondents do not take up the case of the petitioner for consideration for the grant of DCRG.
The court categorically held that,
“In the scheme of things, especially in matters of pension and grant of terminal benefits, it has to be kept in mind that provisions or rules with regard to pension, which are beneficial in nature, have to be interpreted liberally. In the instant case, the petitioner had taken Voluntary Retirement, after serving the requisite number of years to entitle him to pension and other terminal benefits. As such, to give an interpretation that he is not entitled to DCRG as the Notification amending the provision was issued only on 06.04.2015, cannot be taken to be a justifiable ground to deny the DCRG to the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on his contention that the notification is an amendment which is more clarificatory in nature, and if the legislative intent was to exclude Voluntary Retirement, the same would have been made clear in the rules itself.”
Accordingly, this writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the respondents consider the case of the writ petitioner for a grant of DCRG within six weeks.