9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against judgment on pension cut in superannuation benefits.
Details of the judgment: 1. The respondent, a senior lecturer in the Punjab Education Department, challenged the government's decision to apply a 10% cut in his pension and gratuity. The High Court upheld the decision, which was based on the respondent's unsatisfactory service record. The appellant appealed, arguing that pension is not a bounty but a property right. The Court cited previous rulings that established a government servant's right to pension as property under the Constitution. The appellant also contended that no opportunity to show cause was required before imposing the cut, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing the need for natural justice in administrative decisions affecting individual rights. 2. The Court noted that while the order imposing the cut was administrative and not covered by Article 311(2) regarding reduction in rank, it still required giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Citing previous cases, the Court emphasized the importance of natural justice even in administrative decisions with civil consequences. The appellant's reliance on a different judgment was deemed irrelevant, as the present case was deemed to be fully covered by a previous ruling on pension cuts. 3. Ultimately, the Court found no illegality in the impugned judgments and upheld the decision to apply the cut in the respondent's pension and gratuity. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Separate Judgment: - No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
