Pension And Gratuity Are Hard-Earned Property Of An Employee And Cannot Be Taken Away: Chhattisgarh HC

A person works their entire life to save for retirement. For the government, pension secures their retirement; however, what if it is not paid?

In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that a pension is the property of a pensioner and cannot be taken away without following due process. The court referred to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and held that pension as a property is protected under this article. It said that no one can take it away from the beneficiary without following the due process of law.

Article 300-A Of The Constitution Of India

Article 300A says, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law".

Brief Of The Case:

The petitioner, Rajkumar Gonekar, started working as an Assistant Director in 1990 and retired in 2018. During his service, he was promoted to the Deputy Director in 2000 and demoted later to the Assistant Director.

During his service, he was alleged to be involved in the misappropriation of public exchequer. Though, he denied the misappropriation claims and submitted his reply.   

However, the issue remained unresolved. After retirement, he was issued a show-cause notice asking him to respond. On submitting the response, an impugned order was passed under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, to recover Rs 9.23 lakh from his pension.

According to Rule 9, the Governor holds the power to withhold pension partially or fully from a pensioner if found guilty of misconduct or negligence in service.

But, in response to the order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the high court.

The petitioner died in June 2024, and then, his legal heirs were impleaded. 

The Arguments:

According to the petitioner, it was illegal and arbitrary to hold his pension without following due process, whereas respondents argued that due process was followed. They said that the petitioner was informed during the service, and they recovered the amount only after receiving the petitioner's reply and permission from the state government.

The point of contention was that the petitioner was not heard before ordering the withholding of his pension. So, should it be allowed now? 

According to the Pension Rules, 1976, the Governor holds the power to withhold pension partially or fully from a pensioner if found guilty of misconduct or negligence in service.

Court Observation And Order:

In this case, the court referred to Supreme Court cases in which the Supreme Court highlighted the principle of natural justice in the cases of administrative orders and that the competent authority should be mindful and careful about suspending the pension of a person.

Taking into account the facts, the court affirmed that the pension and gratuity of a pensioner are not given for free. This is the hard-earned money of the individual who has worked for years to receive it. It also held that these being in the nature of 'Property' are protected by Article 300-A and thus cannot be taken away without following the due process.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru further observed, “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.”

The court quashed the impugned order and directed a refund of the amount that has been deducted from the pension.