9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government is entitled to reduce the amount of pension and gratuity payable to its officers on their superannuation without giving a reasonable opportunity to the officers to show cause against the proposed reduction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Reduce Pension and Gratuity without Notice: The primary issue in these appeals was whether the State Government could reduce the pension and gratuity of its officers upon their retirement without providing a reasonable opportunity to the officers to show cause against the proposed reduction. In the first case, the officer, Shri K. R. Erry, was informed by the Government that his pension and gratuity would be reduced due to an unsatisfactory service record, without being given an opportunity to show cause. Similarly, in the second case, Shri Sobhag Rai Mehta faced a reduction in his pension without prior notice. The third case involved Shri Khaushal Singh, whose pension was reduced, and gratuity forfeited without any notice. All three officers filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab, asserting that pensionary benefits were a matter of right and could not be reduced without notice. The State contended that pensionary benefits were a bounty and could be reduced based on the Government's discretion under Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules. The High Court ruled in favor of the officers, holding that the right to superannuation pension was vested in the Government servant, and any prejudicial action required notice to show cause. The State Government appealed this decision. The Supreme Court referenced the decision in Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Others (1971 (2) SCC 330), which held that the right to receive a pension is property under Article 31(1) and cannot be withheld by an executive order. The State's argument that pension was a bounty was thus conceded. The State argued that the reduction orders were administrative and did not necessitate notice. However, the Court emphasized that even administrative orders affecting individual rights require adherence to natural justice principles, including providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court examined Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules, which allows for pension reduction if the service was not thoroughly satisfactory. However, the Court noted that allegations against the officers were serious but unproven, and no proper enquiry had been conducted to substantiate these claims. The Court highlighted that the officers had successful careers with promotions, which indicated satisfactory service records. The failure to provide an opportunity to defend against the allegations before imposing the cut was a violation of natural justice principles. The Court cited Ridge v. Baldwin ([1964] A.C. 40), where a dismissal without an opportunity to defend was deemed invalid. The principle of natural justice, requiring a fair hearing before prejudicial decisions, applies to both judicial and administrative actions. The Supreme Court concluded that the State Government could not impose a cut in the pension without giving the officers a reasonable opportunity to present their defense. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to quash the orders imposing the cuts and dismissed the State's appeals with costs. In summary, the judgment emphasized that pension is a property right, and any reduction requires adherence to natural justice principles, including providing a reasonable opportunity to the affected officers to show cause against the proposed action.
|
