No Pension Without Enabling Rule: Allahabad High Court Rejects Retiral Benefits Claim Of Self-Financed Institute Employee
Court holds pension is not automatic and must flow from a statutory rule or scheme; doctrine of “negative equality” cannot be invoked merely because some similarly placed employees were granted such benefits
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired employee of the Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (ICC&CE), University of Allahabad seeking post-retiral benefits, holding that pension and other retiral dues cannot be granted in the absence of any statutory rule providing for such entitlement.
The Court held that even if the institute was an integral part of the University, that alone would not automatically entitle employees to pension or other retiral benefits. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to point to any service rule, statute, or scheme granting such benefits to employees of the self-financed institute.
The petitioner also argued that some employees of the institute had been granted post-retiral benefits and therefore she should receive similar treatment. The Court rejected this plea, invoking the doctrine of “negative equality”, which prevents courts from extending a benefit merely because it was wrongly granted to others.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery while referring to U.P. Roadways Retired Officials & Officers Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 9 SCC 331 observed, “As referred above, the post retiral benefits could only be granted if rule permits. However, in present case, petitioner is not able to show that any rule or statute provides that petitioner is entitled for post retiral benefits. Only on basis that Institute is an integral part of University or petitioner was granted other benefits, it cannot be held that she is entitled for post retiral benefits”.
“The Court also takes note that when University became the Central University in 2005, services of the petitioner and others remained same and in case petitioner and similarly situated other employees are entitled for post retiral benefits before Act, 2005 came into force, said entitlement shall be continued otherwise not. However, as referred above none of provisions referred above has specifically indicated that petitioner and similarly situated persons were entitled for post retiral benefits. No service rule is brought on record in support of their submissions”, the Bench noted.
Senior Advocate Anurag Khanna appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Manish Goyal appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the petitioner, Rekha Singh, had served as Assistant Director/Director in the ICC&CE and retired from service. Earlier, she had approached the High Court seeking payment of salary from November 2014 until her retirement in 2017, which was allowed by the Court in 2018.
The direction was subsequently upheld when the Special Leave Petition filed by the University before the Supreme Court was dismissed.
After retirement, Singh again approached the High Court seeking post-retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other dues. The University rejected her claim, stating that ICC&CE was a temporary self-financing institute and that employees of the institute were engaged on a temporary or contractual basis without any provision for post-retiral benefits under the relevant ordinances.
Before the Court, the petitioner argued that the institute was an integral part of the University and that employees were borne on the strength of university departments. It was further contended that under Section 5(d) of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, the service conditions of employees were protected when the University transitioned from a state university to a central university.
The Court relied on precedents to reiterate that pension is not a bounty but a valuable right that must arise from a governing rule or scheme. In the absence of such a provision, no enforceable claim can be made for pensionary benefits.
Therefore, holding that no legal provision supported the petitioner’s claim and that parity cannot be claimed based on allegedly irregular benefits granted to others, the Court declined to interfere with the University’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Rekha Singh v. Union of India and others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:45134]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.), Mohd. Atif, Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Rahul Sahai, Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
Respondents: Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate, Chandan Sharma, A.S.G.I., Rijwan Ali Akhtar, Advocates.