Supreme Court of India granted relief to elderly cancer patient in decade-old pension dispute, directing Allahabad High Court for urgent hearing. Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stressed compassion.
The Supreme Court of India recently stepped in to grant relief to an elderly cancer patient in a pension dispute that had been pending for almost ten years. Noting the urgency and the petitioner’s serious health condition, the Court asked the Allahabad High Court to take up the case on a priority basis and dispose of it without delay.
A Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stressed that the matter required a humane and compassionate approach. The judges urged the High Court to grant an out-of-turn hearing to the 77-year-old petitioner, pointing out that lengthy judicial delays can lead to grave hardship particularly for senior citizens and those suffering from life-threatening illnesses.
The petitioner, Ram Shanker, told the Supreme Court that the excessive delay in deciding his pension claim effectively violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He argued that the constitutional guarantees of equality and life necessarily include timely access to justice, especially when the issue concerns livelihood and financial security during old age.
He also referred to established legal principles, submitting that pension is not a discretionary benefit that the State may grant or deny at will. Instead, it is a right that is legally recognized and earned through years of service. Shanker maintained that pension is an integral part of the right to livelihood, which courts have repeatedly treated as part of Article 21 in a number of key judgments.
By way of background, Shanker said he worked for the Uttar Pradesh government from June 1, 1970, to May 28, 1985. After completing that service, he joined the Gas Authority of India Limited. Following his retirement, however, the State government rejected his pensionary benefits, citing certain service rules and technical provisions that, according to the authorities, barred his claim.
Shanker challenged the decision before the Allahabad High Court in 2017. Despite several years passing, he claimed the case was repeatedly adjourned, often at the request of the State, resulting in an inordinate delay in final adjudication. He further argued that this prolonged pendency deprived him of financial support and caused significant mental and physical distress.
The Supreme Court’s directive reflects the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure that justice is not defeated by procedural delays. The case also brings attention to a wider concern over slow disposal of service and pension matters, especially those that directly impact retired employees who rely on these benefits for survival and dignity in their old age.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE