The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the constitutional obligation of state authorities to decide pensionary claims without undue delay, issuing a mandatory direction to dispose of a pending representation within a fixed timeframe. This order underscores that administrative inaction, even in the absence of malafide intent, violates the right to reasonable administrative justice under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Rakesh Kumar Pandey, a former employee of the Water Resources Department, submitted a representation on 26 July 2022 seeking extension of pensionary benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, based on his service record and a precedent set by a coordinate bench of this Court in Ram Vishal Pateriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The representation, annexed as P/4, remained undecided for over three years despite repeated follow-ups.
Procedural History
- 26 July 2022: Petitioner filed representation seeking pensionary dues
- November 2025: Petitioner filed a fresh representation (Annexure P/4) reiterating the claim
- January 2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court seeking direction to decide the representation
- No formal order or reply issued by the authority during the pendency
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Engineer, WRD, Ganga Kachhar Rewa, to decide his representation within a stipulated time and, if entitled, to release the benefits without requiring further litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority can lawfully delay adjudication of a pensionary claim indefinitely, and whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel a decision where a statutory or constitutional duty to act exists.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Ram Vishal Pateriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that pensionary benefits are not discretionary but statutory entitlements arising from service. He argued that prolonged inaction violates the principles of natural justice and the right to life under Article 21, which includes the right to timely administrative justice. He further cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to establish that mandamus is maintainable where a public duty is clear and unambiguous.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petitioner’s claim. The Government Advocate conceded that the representation was pending and agreed that the authority must decide it in accordance with law, without opposing the prayer for a time-bound direction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that pensionary benefits are not privileges but rights crystallized upon retirement, governed by service rules and statutory frameworks. The State’s failure to decide a representation for over three years, despite clear legal precedents on the matter, amounted to a breach of its duty to act fairly and expeditiously.
"The right to receive pensionary dues is not contingent upon the whim or administrative convenience of the State. It is a statutory right that must be honored with dispatch."
The Court emphasized that the precedent in Ram Vishal Pateriya established a binding principle for coordinate benches: where a claim is prima facie valid and supported by service records, delay in decision is legally untenable. The Court rejected the notion that administrative backlog justifies indefiniteness, holding that timeliness is an essential component of procedural fairness.
It further noted that the petitioner had not sought interim relief or monetary compensation, but merely a decision. This made the case suitable for mandamus, as the duty was specific, non-discretionary, and legally enforceable.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that public authorities must decide pensionary claims within a fixed timeframe and directed the Chief Engineer to issue a reasoned order within 60 days. If entitled, benefits must be released within 30 days thereafter, without requiring the petitioner to return to court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Decision on Pensionary Claims Cannot Be Indefinitely Delayed
- Practitioners may now invoke mandamus to compel decisions on pending pension representations exceeding one year
- Administrative delays, even without malice, constitute a violation of Article 14 and 21
- Authorities must now treat pensionary claims as time-bound statutory obligations, not discretionary matters
Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory
- A mere acknowledgment or generic reply is insufficient
- Decisions must be speaking orders - clearly explaining the legal and factual basis for allowance or rejection
- Failure to provide reasoning renders the order liable to be set aside in writ proceedings
No Need to Re-litigate if Entitlement is Established
- If the authority finds the claim valid, benefits must be disbursed within 30 days of the order
- Petitioners are not required to file fresh applications or initiate recovery proceedings
- This prevents the cycle of litigation and ensures finality in service matters
