Facts of the Case:

The Petitioner’s Background: H. Nagabhushana Rao, the petitioner, was a 102-year-old individual at the time of the case. He had been receiving the Swatantra Sainik Samman Gaurava Dhana pension as a freedom fighter from the Government of India since 1974. This pension was granted to him by both the Central and State Governments.

Pension Disruption: The central issue of the case was that the petitioner’s pension was abruptly disrupted. The reason given for the discontinuation of his pension was his failure to submit his Life Certificate for the year 2017-2018.

Life Certificate Submission: The petitioner did eventually submit his Life Certificate, but it was submitted on December 24, 2018. After this submission, the government issued a sanction letter, releasing the pension from December 24, 2018, to October 5, 2020.

Unpaid Arrears: The crux of the matter was that the arrears of pension for the period from November 1, 2017, to December 24, 2018, were not paid to the petitioner, and this amounted to Rs. 3,71,280. Therefore, the petitioner approached the court seeking the release of these unpaid arrears.

Judgment Details:The judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Honorable Justice M Nagaprasanna, contains several key points:

Pension as a Right, Not a Privilege: The court emphasized that pension is not merely a privilege but a fundamental right, particularly for elderly individuals. It recognized the essential purpose of pension programs, which is to provide support to individuals in their old age when they may be physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves.

Responsibility of the Bank: The court criticized the bank for failing to collect the petitioner’s Life Certificate. It stressed that the bank should have visited the petitioner, a centenarian, to obtain the necessary documentation and ensure the timely release of his pension. The judgment highlighted that in some cases, the bank is obligated to take this step, especially when pensioners face genuine challenges due to their advanced age.

Obligation to Avoid Unnecessary Litigation: The court pointed out that the responsibility of the bank officers and relevant authorities is to adhere to guidelines and policies to prevent unnecessary litigation. The case had generated multiple litigations, which the court found avoidable if the bank had fulfilled its duties properly.

Respect for Age-Related Limitations: The court acknowledged that elderly pensioners like the petitioner may face difficulties related to their age, including physical and mental limitations. These limitations can make it challenging for them to meet administrative requirements, such as submitting a Life Certificate.

Protection of Pensioners’ Rights: The judgment underscored that the right to receive a pension should not be taken away lightly. Any actions affecting an individual’s pension rights must be in accordance with the law, and special consideration should be given to the unique circumstances and challenges faced by elderly pensioners.

In summary, the judgment in H. Nagabhushana Rao’s case serves as a reminder of the importance of recognizing pension as a fundamental right, especially for elderly individuals, and emphasizes the responsibility of banks and authorities to support pensioners and ensure that they receive their pensions in a timely and respectful manner, taking into account the challenges associated with old age.