2006 (8) TMI 524 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971 Held that - Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the pension could be withheld on compliance of stipulations of the rule. We are unable to appreciate how such a rule could be held ultra vires even at a point of time when pension was a property to which Article 19(1)(f) was applicable. In view of the above we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it declares Rule 10(1) ultra vires. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to the validity of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. Rule 10(1) empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension, either permanently or for a specified period, in cases of grave misconduct or negligence by a pensioner during their service, including post-retirement re-employment. The High Court had declared Rule 10(1) ultra vires the Constitution, citing violations of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1). However, the Supreme Court noted that the right to property, including the right to receive pension, ceased to be a fundamental right post the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, and is now governed by Article 300A of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court highlighted that while pension is a valuable right for a government servant, the issue at hand was not about executive deprivation but the constitutional validity of Rule 10(1). The Court referenced the decision in Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors., which supported the authority of law, such as Rule 10(1), to deprive an employee of their pension. The Court emphasized that various State Rules allow for withholding or reducing pension on grounds of misconduct or negligence, provided principles of natural justice are followed.

Moreover, the Court cited precedents such as State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr., State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry, and State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar, which upheld the State Government's authority to withhold, reduce, or recover pension in cases of misconduct or negligence, even post-retirement. The Court concluded that Rule 10(1) provided the necessary legal authority for withholding pension in compliance with its stipulations, and hence, could not be deemed ultra vires, even when pension was considered a property under Article 19(1)(f).

In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment declaring Rule 10(1) ultra vires and allowed the appeal accordingly, affirming the validity of Rule 10(1) under the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.