Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
Person Can’t Be Deprived Of Pension Without Authority Of Law, Which Is A Constitutional Mandate U/A 300-A Constitution: Chhattisgarh High Court
|The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the impugned Order that granted permission to recover the pension of a retired government employee.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a person cannot be deprived of their pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The Court quashed the impugned Order that granted permission to recover the pension of a retired government employee. The Court further directed the refund of the same.
A Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru remarked, “Bare perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, it is manifest that the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government can be ordered if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding the employee concerned found guilty. However, in the case at hand, except the show cause notice and the reply of the petitioner, nothing is there to establish the fact that the petitioner found guilty in any judicial or disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the recovery order by exercising power under Rule 9 is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Advocate N Naha Roy appeared for the Petitioners, while Panel Lawyer Kanwaljeet Singh Saini represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Original petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Director and later promoted to Deputy Director. However, due to certain corrections in the gradation list, he was demoted back to the post of Assistant Director. Subsequently, following Court Orders, he served as Deputy Director and retired upon reaching superannuation.
During his service, a notice was issued to the Petitioner alleging misappropriation, to which he submitted a reply denying the allegations. After his retirement, a show cause notice was issued, and the Petitioner again submitted his response refuting the charges.
Despite his submissions, an Order was passed to recover a certain amount from his pension. The Petitioner argued that the Order was illegal and arbitrary.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained, “It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
The Court held, “A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant State Government to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.”
Consequently, the Court ordered that “the impugned order dated 15/02/2021 Annexure P/1 is quashed and it is directed that whatever the amount has been deducted from the pension of the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order, the same be refunded to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original petitioners, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs & Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:15440)