Permanent Withdrawal of Pension for Quarters' Non-Vacation Without Statutory Procedure Is Illegal and Recovery From Class-III Retirees Impermissible.

The petitioner, a retired "Record Keeper" from the Directorate of Quality Assurance, Jamshedpur, superannuated on January 31, 2006

On July 18, 2012, the respondents ordered the permanent withdrawal of his full pension under Rule 8(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, alleging he had not vacated his government quarter

His pension was stopped in September 2018

Although the petitioner provided evidence of vacating the premises on April 22, 2006, the respondents issued a letter on January 19, 2023, agreeing to restart the pension from March 16, 2022, only on the condition that Rs. 6,91,799 disbursed up to August 2018 be recovered

Consequently, his bank account was frozen

1. Whether the respondents were justified in permanently withdrawing the petitioner's full pension under Rule 8(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, based on the non-vacation of a quarter

2. Whether the recovery of Rs. 6,91,799 from a retired Class-III employee as a pre-condition for restarting pension is legally sustainable

Rule 8(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows for the withholding of pension only upon a finding of "grave misconduct" established via due process

Principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or Class-III/Class-IV workers when the payment was not due to fraud or misrepresentation

Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, safeguarding pension as a property right and a measure of social security

The court reasoned that pension is a property right and cannot be withdrawn without a lawful inquiry and a clear finding of grave misconduct. It found that the respondents failed to conduct a regular departmental proceeding to establish such misconduct

Alleged non-vacation of a quarter may warrant eviction or penal rent, but does not constitute "grave misconduct" under Rule 8(1)(b)

Evidence further showed the petitioner had actually vacated the quarter in 2006

Regarding the recovery, the court applied the Rafiq Masih guidelines, noting the petitioner was a retired Class-III employee and no fraud was alleged. Since the respondents mistakenly disbursed the funds, demanding recovery after several years from an aged pensioner was deemed iniquitous and arbitrary

The respondents were directed to: (i) restart the regular pension immediately without recovery conditions; (ii) defreeze the petitioner’s bank account; and (iii) release all arrears within six weeks, failing which a 6% compound interest would apply. While respondents may seek legal recourse for occupation charges, the court held they cannot withhold the entire pension for such claims