Skip to content


M. Sajjanam Vs. State of Madras, Represented by Collector of Kanyakumari District - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 225 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Mad49
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 310 and 311; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9
AppellantM. Sajjanam
RespondentState of Madras, Represented by Collector of Kanyakumari District
Advocates:S. Chellasami and ;D.R. Srinivasan, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- - it is well known that no government servant has an enforceable right to pension......claim for higher pension, though in the relief column it was prayed that the suit was for re-settlement of the pension due to the plaintiff.it is well known that no government servant has an enforceable right to pension. a pension is an ex-gratia payment made to a government servant in respect of his past conduct and service out of the discretion of the government. it is open to them to refuse pension to a government servant, though such refusal must be based upon grounds set forth in the civil service and pension rules. i presume similar rules apply to the travancore government servants. no suit would lie to declare a right to a pension, as a government servant cannot say that he has got a legal right to a pension. if there was no legal right to a pension, the suit would not be a suit.....
Judgment:

Ganapatia Pillai, J.

1. The question pressed in the appeal relates to what is termed proper pension payable to a Retired Government servant. The erstwhile State of Travancore fixed a certain pension for the plaintiff who had rendered service as District Munsif. The suit was laid in effect to establish a claim for higher pension, though in the relief column it was prayed that the suit was for re-settlement of the pension due to the plaintiff.

It is well known that no Government servant has an enforceable right to pension. A pension is an ex-gratia payment made to a Government servant in respect of his past conduct and service out of the discretion of the Government. It is open to them to refuse pension to a Government servant, though such refusal must be based upon grounds set forth in the Civil Service and Pension Rules. I presume similar rules apply to the Travancore Government Servants. No suit would lie to declare a right to a pension, as a Government servant cannot say that he has got a legal right to a pension. If there was no legal right to a pension, the suit would not be a suit cognisable by a civil court because the Government servant has no right to any property or any office which is cognisable by a civil Court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Though this ground does not seem to have been relied upon by either Court in dismissing the claim, this is sufficient to show that the second appeal is not maintainable.

2. The Second Appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //