Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Pension is a “Property” Right Protected Under Constitution [Read Order]

Chhattisgarh: The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has delivered a significant judgment, establishing that pension is a hard-earned benefit that accrues to employees and constitutes “property” protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Chhattisgarh High Court on Pension Rights Under Article 300-A

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the State cannot deprive retired employees of their pension without following due process of law.

The court addressed a case involving Rajkumar Gonekar (since deceased), represented by his legal heirs, who challenged an order dated 15/02/2021, which granted permission to recover Rs. 9.23 lakhs from his pension by exercising powers under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Retired Employees Can’t Be Denied Pension Without Due Process: HC

Examining the facts of the case, the court noted: “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’.”

The court emphasized the constitutional protection afforded to pension rights, stating: “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 the attempt of the appellant State Government to take away a part of the pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.”

Analyzing Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the court observed: “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 is found guilty. However, in the case at hand, except for the show-cause notice and the reply of the petitioner, nothing is there to establish the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in any judicial or disciplinary proceeding.”

The court cited significant Supreme Court precedents, including State of Punjab vs. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta and Rameshwar Yadav vs. Union of India, emphasizing the requirements of natural justice and reasoned decision-making when withholding pension.

In its final verdict, the court quashed the impugned order dated 15/02/2021 and directed that any amount already deducted from the petitioner’s pension be refunded to his legal heirs within 45 days from the receipt of the court order.

Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer, appeared for the State of Chhattisgarh.

Case Title: Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

 [Read Order]