On March 29, 1990, Mr. Kumar (name altered) got designated to the post of Assistant Director of a federal government department. In 2000, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, however due to some corrections in the gradation list, he was benched back to Assistant Director. Later on, following a court order, he resumed his function as Deputy Director and retired on January 31, 2018 on reaching the age of superannuation (retirement).
While he was still in service, that is before retirement, a notification was provided to him declaring he was associated with misappropriation. He responded, insisting he had not done anything incorrect and had actually acted lawfully.
After his retirement, on December 13, 2018, he got a show-cause notification (SCN) asking for his reaction. He responded on January 25, 2019, rejecting the accusations versus him.
In spite of this, on February 2, 2021, the federal government passed an order to recuperate Rs 9.23 lakh from his pension. The federal government exercised its powers under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Distressed by this choice, Kumar took the matter to the Chhattisgarh High Court, arguing that the impugned order was passed in a prohibited and approximate way and without following the due procedure of law and, for this reason, should have to be quashed.
The attorney for the federal government informed the Chhattisgarh High Court that the order was passed after following the due procedure of law. In this specific case, well before his retirement, in 2016-17 notifications were provided concerning the misappropriation of public funds and after he reacted, the action was taken. It can’t be stated that action was taken after his retirement.
On April 2, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled in his household’s favour, as he died throughout the trial, and is made it through by partner and kids. He passed away on June 20, 2024.
Vipul Jai, Partner, PSL Advocates and Solicitors, states that in this judgement, the Chhattisgarh High Court, reserved the State Government’s order allowing healing of Rs. 9.23 Lakhs from the pension of a retired Deputy Director under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The Court unconditionally held that any such healing can be made just where the staff member has actually been condemned in properly concluded judicial or department.
Jai states that in today case, beyond the issuance of a show-cause notification and the Petitioner’s action thereto, no department or judicial case had actually culminated in any finding of misbehavior or neglect. Even more, stressing that pension and gratuity are not federal government bounties however hard-earned statutory rights made through years of genuine service, the Court observed that these advantages are safeguarded as “home” under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Any deprivation of such rights without following due procedure of law would amount to an offense of constitutional and concepts of natural justice.
Check out: Son uses for late dad’s bank task on caring premises, gets no action for years, files case, wins Rs 1 lakh, Allahabad High Court order
Kunal Maliramani, Advocate, Accord Juris, stated to ET Wealth Online: “The Chhattisgarh High Court in this case has affirmed that pension is not a matter of generosity by the State but a constitutional right earned by an employee through years of dedicated service. The Court held that no part of a person’s pension can be withheld or recovered without the authority of law and without following due process, including a proper finding of misconduct in a lawful proceeding. This judgment is significant because it protects retired employees and their legal heirs from arbitrary deductions or recoveries by the government. It reinforces that pension and gratuity are forms of property safeguarded under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and any deprivation of these benefits without legal sanction is unconstitutional.”
Check out: Higher EPS pension can’t be rejected to members retiring after September 1, 2014, when EPFO accepts greater wage contributions, Kerala High Court
Chhattisgarh High Court legal analysis
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of Chhattisgarh High Court in the judgement (WPS 4181 of 2021) dated April 2, 2025, stated that it is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. A worker makes these advantages by dint of his long, constant, devoted and unblemished service. It is hence a difficult made advantage which accumulates to a staff member and remains in the nature of “property””This right to residential or commercial property can not be removed without the due procedure of law based on the arrangements of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
Check out: Government subtracted gratuity and pension of a retired engineer for not leaving govt home on time, he battles back and wins case in Supreme Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court stated: “An individual can not be denied of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional required preserved in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that efforts of the appellant State Government to eliminate a part of pension or gratuity and even leave encashment with no statutory arrangement and under the umbrage of administrative guideline can not be countenanced.”
Check out: Wife submits case 24 years after partner’s death in govt task; Rajasthan High Court orders pension, gratuity payment with interest
Chhattisgarh High Court judgement
The Chhattisgarh High Court that on bare perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, it appears that the healing from pension of the entire or part of any monetary loss triggered to the Government can be bought if, in any department or judicial continuing the staff member worried was condemned.
Check out: Employee with ‘Highly Valued’ score in appraisal got termination letter with words ‘harmful conduct’, he combats back and wins case in Delhi High Court
In the case at hand, other than the show-cause notification and the reply of the petitioner (staff member), there is absolutely nothing to develop that the petitioner was discovered guilty in any judicial or disciplinary case. Hence, the healing order by working out power under Rule 9 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Check out: Taxpayer battles and gets huge relief versus Rs 2.28 crore earnings tax notification; ITAT Ahmedabad minimized it to just Rs 63,000
Judgement: “In view of the foregoing factors and because of the aforementioned judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 15/02/2021 Annexure P/1 is quashed and it is directed that whatever the quantity has actually been subtracted from the pension of the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned order, the exact same be reimbursed to the petitioners, who are the legal successors of the initial petitioners, within a duration of 45 days from the date of invoice of a copy of this order. Resultantly, the writ petition is enabled. There will be no order regarding expenses.”
Check out: Adult boy, child take daddy to court looking for monetary assistance for education; win case under Hindu law
Jai states that the significance of this judgment depends on its clear affirmation that a pension is a vested and constitutionally secured right, and not a matter of kindness or discretion of the Government. By highlighting that any healing or withholding of pension should strictly follow due procedure, the Court has actually strengthened the concepts of fairness and responsibility in administrative action.
Jai states that this judgment, for that reason, stands as an essential precedent for the future, guaranteeing a more transparent and simply technique in matters worrying post-retirement advantages. It will work as an assisting authority for comparable cases, supplying much-needed relief and peace of mind to retired workers and their households that their long-lasting service will be bestowed the self-respect and security they truly should have.
Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL), states that the Chhattisgarh High Court, in the instantaneous case, highlighted that Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 permits the Governor to keep or withdraw pension just after correct department or judicial procedures, and just if a worker is condemned of triggering budgeting loss to the federal government. It was held that this guideline needs company adherence to the concepts of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, under which the staff member should be offered a reasonable chance to be heard.
Chopra states that the High Court described the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Rameshwar Yadav v. Union of India, restating that administrative actions including civil effects should abide by the concepts of natural justice. Any order that denies an individual of vested rights without appropriate query or validation breaks the guideline of law and is unsustainable.
Chopra states: “This judgment rules in favour of retired employees and their families, protecting them from arbitrary orders and actions. It restores and strengthens the post-retirement security of employees entitled to pension. Further, it reflects the judiciary’s responsibility in upholding justice and accountability in administrative actions.”
