Widow of RMO Granted Relief After Eight-Year Legal Battle
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that pension is not a “bounty” or “gratuitous payment” but a statutory and constitutional right, granting relief to the widow of a Residential Medical Officer (RMO) who was denied pensionary benefits despite nearly two decades of service. The judgment reinforces the principle that retirement benefits are earned entitlements, not acts of charity by the state.
Background of the Case
The case involved the widow of an RMO appointed at Dum Dum Municipal Specialised Hospital in March 1994. The doctor served continuously and without blemish until his death in July 2016, completing 22 years of service. Following his demise, his widow applied for pension and retirement benefits, expecting the same treatment accorded to other similarly placed officers.
Pension Claim Rejected in 2024
In 2024, the Director of Local Bodies rejected her claim, stating that the doctor’s appointment was not made against a “sanctioned post” and lacked prior state government approval. Aggrieved by the decision, the widow approached the Calcutta High Court, challenging the denial as arbitrary and unjust.
Court Clarifies Pension Is Not Charity
Hearing the matter, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed on February 5 that pension cannot be treated as charity. The Court stated, “Pension is not a bounty or a gratuitous payment, but a deferred component of compensation for long and continuous service, and constitutes a valuable statutory and constitutional right.” The ruling emphasized that pension is part of the compensation earned through years of dedicated service.
Arguments Presented Before the Court
Advocate Saptarshi Roy, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the deceased doctor had served for over 20 years and had been granted all benefits available to government employees during his tenure. He highlighted that other similarly placed RMOs had received pension benefits, and therefore post facto approval of the post should be granted. Meanwhile, the state’s counsel contended that only two posts had been legally sanctioned in 1994, yet four medical officers were appointed, rendering the appointment irregular.
Court Rejects State’s Technical Objections
Rejecting the state’s argument, the Court noted that throughout his career, the doctor had been treated as a regular employee, paid from public funds, and extended service benefits under applicable norms. At no point during his lifetime was his appointment questioned. The Court held that denying pension after extracting over two decades of service would be wholly unjust, unfair, and arbitrary.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
The High Court further observed that the authorities’ consistent conduct created a legitimate expectation that the doctor would receive retirement benefits. Denial of pension in such circumstances was held to violate Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and livelihood with dignity) of the Constitution. The Court stressed that state action carrying serious civil consequences must adhere to standards of fairness and reasonableness.
Pension Denial Termed Arbitrary and Unlawful
The bench also pointed out that other RMOs appointed during the same period had been granted pensionary benefits pursuant to earlier judgments in 2007. The deceased doctor could not be singled out for hostile discrimination due to excess appointments. Holding that administrative lapses cannot be shifted onto an employee, the Court set aside the state’s order and upheld the widow’s right to pension, reaffirming that pension is a constitutional entitlement earned through dedicated service—not a discretionary favour.
