Failure to exercise court-granted liberty within stipulated time bars subsequent pension reduction and mandates restoration with consequential interest.

The petitioner, a retired Professor who superannuated on 30 November 2005, was initially sanctioned pension of ₹8,859 per month plus dearness allowance of ₹5,227, totalling ₹14,086 per month, with effect from 1 December 2005.

PPO No. 06/14/02/0089 was issued on 3 April 2006 and the first pension was credited on 15 April 2006.

Subsequently, without prior notice or compliance with Rule 52 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, her pension was reduced to ₹8,547 per month and ₹6,152 was recovered from her on 30 November 2006.

The petitioner challenged the reduction and recovery in W.P. No. 3208 of 2011.

By order dated 8 December 2014, the Coordinate Bench quashed the reduction and recovery for violation of natural justice and Rule 52, while granting the respondents liberty to initiate fresh proceedings within 30 days of receiving the order and in accordance with law.

The petitioner asserted that she supplied and repeatedly communicated the earlier order to the respondents between 2015 and 2019, but no fresh proceedings were initiated.

The respondents nevertheless continued to pay pension at the reduced rate and subsequently issued PPO dated 6 January 2020 fixing pension at ₹8,547 per month.

1. Whether the respondents could continue reducing the petitioner’s pension from ₹8,859 to ₹8,547 per month after failing to exercise the liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench within the stipulated 30-day period and without initiating proceedings consistent with natural justice.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential arrears and interest on the differential pension amount.

3. Whether the respondents were required to examine and decide the petitioner’s claim relating to the CDS amount in accordance with the earlier judgment.

4. Whether delay in filing the present writ petition defeated the petitioner’s claim, or whether non-payment of pension constituted a recurring cause of action.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Rule 52 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, holding that reduction of pension and recovery of amounts involve civil consequences and cannot be undertaken without compliance with natural justice and the prescribed procedure.

It applied the binding directions in the earlier judgment in W.P. No. 3208 of 2011, under which the respondents could initiate fresh action only within 30 days of receipt of the order.

The Court relied on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 4134 of 2022, for the principle that erroneous fixation of salary or pension gives rise to a recurring cause of action, although recovery of past arrears may be subject to limitation.

For delayed retiral dues, the Court relied on Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.), (1994) 2 SCC 240, and D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, supporting payment of interest where delay is attributable to the employer.

The Coordinate Bench had already held the original reduction and recovery illegal because they were effected without notice and without adherence to Rule 52 and natural justice.

Although liberty was granted to the respondents to take fresh action, that liberty was expressly restricted to 30 days from receipt of the order.

The petitioner produced material showing repeated communication of the order, while the respondents did not dispute receipt or demonstrate that any lawful proceeding was commenced within the prescribed period.

Consequently, after expiry of the 30-day period, the respondents could not continue the reduced pension or revive the reduction through the later PPO dated 6 January 2020.

Since pension at ₹8,547 was contrary to the subsisting entitlement of ₹8,859, the petitioner was entitled to recalculation of pension and consequential arrears.

The Court further held that the claim was not barred merely by delay because each underpayment of pension constituted a recurring cause of action.

The earlier direction concerning CDS benefits also remained operative and required compliance.

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner’s pension at the original rate of ₹8,859 per month and extend all consequential benefits.

They were further directed to pay 12% per annum interest on the differential arrears arising from revision of the pension and to complete the exercise within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

In case of non-compliance within that period, the respondents would be liable for further interest at 6% per annum from the date on which the petitioner became entitled to pension at ₹8,859 per month.

The respondents were also directed to comply with the earlier order concerning the petitioner’s CDS claim within one month of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.