A university cannot withhold post-retiral dues absent statutory authority or adjudicated liability.

The respondent, a retired Professor of Acharya Narendra Dev University, was alleged to have failed to obtain registration of a University vehicle within the prescribed period, allegedly causing a loss of ₹16,00,930 to the University.

The University passed an order dated 11 April 2022 directing recovery of that amount under the Uttar Pradesh (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and dismissed the respondent’s appeal on 7 December 2022.

In Writ-A No. 1494 of 2023, the High Court quashed both orders for want of proper consideration of the respondent’s defence and because the appellate order had been passed by the same authority that passed the original order. Liberty was granted to the University to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

In a subsequent writ petition, the High Court directed the University to release the respondent’s full pension and retiral dues, holding that the proposed recovery under the 1999 Rules could operate only against pay and that no provision permitted recovery from retiral dues after retirement.

Despite these orders, the University released the retiral benefits while withholding ₹16,00,930 on account of the alleged loss.

The respondent challenged the withholding in Writ-A No. 7389 of 2025. The writ court allowed the petition, holding that the withholding lacked statutory authority and violated Article 300-A of the Constitution, and directed payment of the amount with 7% annual interest from the thirtieth day after retirement until realization.

The University challenged that decision by the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

1. Whether the University could recover or withhold ₹16,00,930 from the respondent’s post-retiral dues in the absence of an applicable disciplinary provision or other statutory authority permitting such recovery after retirement?

2. Whether Regulation 922 of the Civil Services Regulations authorized the withholding or adjustment of the alleged loss from the respondent’s retiral dues?

3. Whether the direction to pay interest at 7% per annum on the withheld amount warranted interference in appeal?

The Court applied Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 governing the special appeal.

It held that recovery of pecuniary loss must be supported by a disciplinary rule or other valid statutory authority applicable to the employee and the institution; provisions not adopted by or applicable to the University could not furnish legal authority for recovery.

The Court considered the Uttar Pradesh (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, but noted that they were not applicable to the University and, in any event, did not provide a basis for recovery from post-retiral dues in the circumstances of the case.

It also considered Regulation 922 of the Civil Services Regulations, which concerns ascertainable Government dues and recovery in the pensionary context, but held that it was not applicable to the University and could not validate the impugned withholding.

In the absence of lawful adjudication or statutory authorization, withholding the respondent’s property amounted to an infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The Court further applied the principle that retiral benefits cannot be withheld without authority of law and upheld interest as compensation for prolonged deprivation of the respondent’s money.

The Court rejected the University’s reliance on the 1999 Rules and Regulation 922 because the University itself admitted that neither regime had been adopted or was otherwise applicable to its employees.

The original recovery order had already been quashed and was never successfully challenged.

Although liberty had been granted to initiate fresh proceedings, no valid punishment order was passed under any applicable disciplinary framework before the respondent’s retirement on 31 May 2022.

Further, there was no statutory provision analogous to Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations permitting post-retirement recovery from the respondent’s dues.

The alleged loss therefore did not constitute legally recoverable “Government dues,” and the University could not unilaterally withhold the amount from pensionary or other retiral benefits.

Since the withholding lacked authority of law, it violated Article 300-A.

The Court also found no reason to interfere with the award of 7% interest, particularly because the withheld amount was substantial and would have supported the respondent after retirement.

The Court affirmed the writ court’s direction requiring the University to pay ₹16,00,930 to the respondent with interest at 7% per annum from the thirtieth day after his retirement until actual realization.

It held that the University had no lawful authority to withhold or recover the amount from the respondent’s post-retiral dues, as the cited disciplinary rules and Civil Services Regulations were inapplicable and no other statutory provision supported the recovery.