Sanctioned pension cannot be reduced by executive order without statutory authority.

The Tamil Nadu Government introduced Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) for government doctors through G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 23.10.2009, prospectively. A Division Bench had upheld that prospective application and the distinction between doctors retiring before and after that date

In 2018, G.O.Ms.No.236 revised the pension of certain doctors who had retired before 23.10.2009.

Following a show-cause process and earlier litigation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 05.02.2025, cancelling G.O.Ms.No.236 prospectively and restoring pension to the prior rates, while waiving recovery of amounts already paid

The affected pensioners challenged G.O.Ms.No.30. A Single Judge set it aside, and the State filed these appeals

Whether the Government could reduce pension already sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.236 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.30, without statutory authority under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978

Whether the earlier ruling upholding the prospective operation of G.O.Ms.No.354 permitted the State to withdraw the pension benefits granted under G.O.Ms.No.236

Whether financial constraints justified the reduction of the respondents’ sanctioned pension

Article 300-A of the Constitution prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law; pension is a property right, and executive instructions lacking statutory force cannot, by themselves, authorise its withholding or reduction (State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210)

Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 provides that sanctioned pension may not be revised to a pensioner’s disadvantage except where revision is required to correct a clerical error, subject to the Rule’s conditions

The Court also considered the principle that a reasonable cut-off date for a revised benefit may be valid where supported by rational grounds and financial constraints (Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Union of India v. P.N. Menon, Hari Ram Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy, State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal and State of Tripura v. Anjan Bhattacharjee)

Those authorities did not displace the requirement of legal authority to reduce pension already sanctioned.

The Court accepted the earlier Division Bench ruling that G.O.Ms.No.354 could operate prospectively and that pre- and post-23.10.2009 retirees could be treated as separate classes; it therefore did not treat the respondents’ claim as establishing a general right to retrospective DACP

It held, however, that the appeals concerned the later reduction of pension already sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.236. Rule 56 permitted disadvantageous revision only to correct a clerical error, and no applicable exception under Rules 8 or 9 was shown

G.O.Ms.No.30 could not itself supply the necessary statutory authority, and the Court found no indication that it had been issued under Article 162

Waiving recovery of past payments did not cure the reduction of future pension. Nor did the asserted financial burden justify deprivation without authority of law

It dismissed the writ appeals, affirmed the Single Judge’s order setting aside G.O.Ms.No.30, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions