SC pulls up UP govt over 10-year delay in retired peon's pension dues

The Supreme Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government over the delay in releasing the retiral dues of a former peon for nearly 10 years after his retirement and directed the state's Chief Secretary to submit a report explaining the delay, identifying those responsible and detailing the compensation proposed for the retired employee.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) when it expressed strong displeasure with the state government's handling of the matter and observed that "grave injustice has been done to the petitioner".

The petitioner was appointed as a peon in 1984 and retired in 2016 after nearly 32 years of service. His service was pensionable, and he repeatedly sought the release of his pension and filed several complaints.

In 2018, he approached the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition seeking payment of his retiral benefits. In 2024, the high court directed the concerned office to trace and place on record the state government's counter affidavit. However, the case was not listed thereafter.

The petitioner subsequently filed an application for an early hearing in October 2025. The application was disposed of in April 2026 without fixing a date for hearing. He then approached the Supreme Court challenging the 2024 order.

Senior Advocate Anita Tripathi, appearing for the petitioner, told the Supreme Court that only the gratuity amount had been paid in 2025, after a delay of nine years.

The Uttar Pradesh government filed a compliance affidavit, in which the Supreme Court noted an inconsistency. The court observed that paragraph 11 stated that the petitioner had been absent from July 20, 2009, to November 30, 2010, because of which only provisional pension had been approved, and that he had not responded to requests to submit documents.

However, paragraph 12 stated that the petitioner had received his salary for the same period, indicating that there had been no interruption in his service. Based on this, the provisional pension was cancelled and final pension was recommended.

The court was also informed that Rs 7,16,295 had been disbursed towards the petitioner's General Provident Fund in 2025.

A subsequent compliance affidavit stated that the petitioner had received pension arrears and other benefits amounting to Rs 29,06,663 in 2026. He would also receive a regular monthly pension of Rs 11,200 along with Dearness Allowance.

After examining the facts, the Supreme Court questioned how the petitioner had managed to survive for the past 11 years. It observed that although he had filed the writ petition in 2018, no substantial progress had taken place over the following eight years.

The bench said the state, being a model employer, had a responsibility to ensure that the pension papers were cleared promptly when the petitioner retired, but that this had not been done.

"On the contrary, an absolute non-issue was raised about the petitioner being probably absent from 20.07.2009 to 30.11.2010 and a provisional order resulted. Very soon the department realised that there was a mistake and corrected the error," the bench observed.

The court expressed shock that the petitioner had not received his retiral dues for 10 years after retirement despite there being no fault on his part.

"We are not just taken aback but we are totally aghast that this can happen to an employee who was given dedicated service 32 years. It should not be forgotten that the petitioner joined as a peon and superannuated on 31.07.2016 in the same post. This Court has reiterated times without number that pension is neither a bounty or a charity but is a deferred payment for services already rendered. In other words, it means that a portion of the salary payable every month is kept back and it is paid after the employee superannuates," the bench said.

"Grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. We are not prepared to leave the matter to rest here. This unfortunate calamity should not befall any other employee," it added.

The court also noted that the petitioner was 71 years old, had completed 32 years of service and was suffering from several medical complications. It expressed concern that the department had "shown absolutely no concern for the cause of the petitioner and only after our intervention the legitimate dues and arrears have been released".

The bench directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to submit a report by December 31, 2026, explaining why the pension papers were not cleared immediately after the petitioner's retirement, what caused the delay and which officers or employees were responsible at different stages.

The report will also have to state what action is proposed against those responsible and how the state proposes to compensate the petitioner for the serious violation of his rights.

The court further directed the state to issue necessary orders or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that pension papers of employees who are legitimately entitled to their pension are not delayed even by a day.

A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice was requested to examine whether cases concerning the non-release of pension could be prioritised for early disposal.

The matter will next be heard on January 4, 2027.