LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus K. R. ERRY & SOBHAG RAI MEHTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
K. R. ERRY & SOBHAG RAI MEHTA
(With Connected Appeal)
September 21, 1973
405
[J. M. SHELAT, D. G. PALEKAR, K. K. MATHEW, S. N. DWIVEDI
ANDY. V. CHANDRA.CHUO, JJ.]
P1111jab Pension Rules-R. 6.4-Natural justice--Oovtrnment imposing
cut in pension-Allegation of irregularities while in Service-Requirement
of reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Pension Rules provides "6.4 (a) The full pen·
sion. admissible under the rule is not to be given "" a matter of coune, or
unless the service rendered has been really approved.
(b) If the service bas not beeen thoroughly satisfactory, the authority
sanctioning the pension should make reduction in the amount as it thinks
proper.
The respondents were employed in the. service of the. appellant SMc.
On their retirement the State govmment imposed a cut m thetr pension
and in the gratuity amount.
It was alleged by the State government that
the officers had committed major irregularities and that the records of the
officers showed that their career were not altogether satisfactory .. There-
upon the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court contending
that pensionary benefit with the right to superannuation
pension were
property to which the officers by rewon of their service were entitled as
a matt.er of right and therefore they could not be deprived of any part
of that property without notices to show cause why the cut should not be
imposed. The High Court 'luash<ld the orders imposing the cut. It held
that the right to superannuation pension was a right vested in the .$overn·
ment servant and before that right is prejudicially affected he is entitled to
a notice fo show cause against the proposed cut. In the appeal to this
Court it was conoeded on behalf of the State government that in view of
the decisions <>f this Court in Deokirwulan PrQS(ld v. The State of Bihar
and Othtrs [1971) 2 S.C.C. 330 it was no longer open to contend that a pen-
sion was a bounty. But it was contended that the order of the State
government in applying the cut :was an administrative order under rule
6.4 of the Pension Roles and therefore, the State government was
not
liable to issue a notice ·1o show cause against the proposed cut. It was
pointed out that the Sl1lte government had 'in its po6SCSSion the confidential
records of the ollicers and on consideration of the same it was open to
it reduce the pension in its discretion.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: The State government could not have applied a cut in
the
pensions !'f the officers without giving them a reasonable opportunity to
make their de.fence.
Where a body or authority is judicial or where it
has. to determtn~. a matter _in~olving rights judicially because of express
or u;nphed provisions of prmc1ple~ of natural justice audi a/teram partem
•~ph~s. Where a b<?dy. or authority is characteristically administrative the
pnnciple of natural 1ustice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of
l)lat body or authority ~ffec!-5 in.dividual rights or interests, and having re-
gard to th~ particular SLtu&bon it would be unfair for the body or autho-·
rity not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
[ 4 t3C)
406
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
[1973) 2 S.C.R.
Ri~ge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40; Province of Bombay v. Kusa/das S.
A
Advam & Ors. (1950] S.C.R. 621 (725); Board of High School & Inter-
mediate Education, U.P. Al/aJ,abad v. Ghanshyom Das Gupta and Ors.
[1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 36; Stale of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Biapan{ Dei &
Ors., [196~} 2 S.C.R. 625; In re. R.K. (An Infant) (19671 2 Q.B.D. 617;
~· K. Kro1pak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1970] I S.C.R. 457 and
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [1963] 14 C.B.N.S. 180, referred to.
. f1. Narasimachar v. The State of Mysore, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 98 I, dis-
B
tmgu1shed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals :-:os. 1893-
1894 of 1967.
Appeals by certificate from the judgment and order· Jated
October 25, 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Civil
Writs Nos. 504 of 1964 and 723 of 1965 and Civil App~a1 No.
735 of 1968.
Appeal by certificate from the order dated March 8. i 967
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LP.A.
No. 66 of 1967.
1'. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant r in al"I
the appeals).
Bhimsena Rao and S. Ramachandran, for the respond~nt (in
C. A. No. 735/68).
c
D
B. R. Agrawala, for the respExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.