Pensionary benefits are property and cannot be withheld except as authorized by law.

The petitioner retired from service on 31 July 2023 but had not received her Provident Fund, gratuity, or other retiral benefits.

She was receiving pension pursuant to a Pension Payment Order dated 24 September 2025.

She submitted a representation dated 10 December 2025 seeking consideration and release of her outstanding retiral dues, but the representation remained undecided.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.

The Court recorded that affidavits were not called for and that the respondents’ allegations were consequently not deemed admitted.

Whether the petitioner’s representation dated 10 December 2025 concerning her unpaid Provident Fund, gratuity, and other retiral benefits should be considered by the competent authority after giving her and the concerned respondent an opportunity of hearing.

Whether, upon determination of the petitioner’s entitlement, the retiral dues should be calculated and paid with interest from 1 August 2023 until actual tender of payment.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, directing that the petitioner and the concerned respondent receive at least seven days’ prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before the representation is decided.

It also applied the principle that pensionary and retiral benefits constitute the employee’s property and cannot be withheld except in accordance with law.

The Court directed payment of applicable retiral dues with interest at 8% per annum from 1 August 2023 until actual tender.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

Since the petitioner’s retirement had occurred on 31 July 2023 and substantial retiral benefits remained unpaid, while her representation had not been considered, the Court required the competent authority to undertake a lawful decision-making process rather than grant immediate payment without adjudication.

The prescribed notice and hearing protected procedural fairness, and the requirement of a reasoned order ensured that the petitioner’s claim would be determined transparently.

The Court further established a time-bound administrative and treasury process for calculating and releasing the dues, treating the pensionary benefits as the petitioner’s property and compensating the delay through 8% interest.

The petitioner was directed to serve the writ petition and order upon respondents nos. 3 and 8.

Respondent no. 3 was required, after issuing at least seven days’ prior hearing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing, to decide the representation dated 10 December 2025 by a reasoned order within four weeks and communicate it within one week thereafter.

The petitioner’s dues were to be calculated from 1 August 2023 with 8% annual interest until actual tender.

The reasoned order was to be forwarded to respondent no. 2, who was to calculate the amount and transmit the records to the jurisdictional Treasury Officer; payment of the arrears and interest was then to be made directly into the petitioner’s bank account within the prescribed period.

The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.