FLASH

WATCH THIS BLOG REGULARLY FOR LATEST NEWS ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION & OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS RELATING TO EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS,CENTRAL GOVT PENSIONERS,LIC/GIC PENSIONERS* A UNIQUE BLOG WITH MORE THAN 1 CRORE VIEWERS & 700 FOLLOWERS #

FLASH

  • FlashFLASH* NAVAL SAILORS WHO JOINED ON OR BEFORE 03/07/1976 & DISCHARGED AFYTER 10 YEARS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL PENSION AS PER SC JUDGEMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL 2147/2011 New **** L*OROP CASE NEXT HEARING LIKELY ON 15/12/2017
  • New











    .
  • Thursday, 25 October 2018

    How to Calculate Pay for Defence Personnel? – Formula for Fixation of Pay

    Formulae for Fixation of Pay from 3rd CPC to 4th CPC
    If 20% x of B.P (3rdCPC)Value is less than 75 then
    B.P+ D.A + A.D.A + ad hoc DA + IR-1 &IR-2 + 75 = 4th CPC Basic Pay
    Otherwise,
    B.P + D.A + A.D.A+ ad hoc DA + IR-1 & IR-2+ + 20% of B.P= 4th CPC Basic Pay

    Formulae for Fixation of Pay from 4th CPC to 5th CPC.
    2.98 x (4th CPC B.P) + 100 = 5th CPC Basic P
    Formulae for Fixation of pay from 5th CPC to 5th CPC (10-10-1997)
    As per change of scale if occur.
    Formulae for Fixation of Pay from 5th CPC to 6th CPC
    a. As per Appendix G to S NI 01/S/2008
    b. For X Group personnel add X Group Pay

    Formulae for Fixation of Pay from 6th CPC to 7th CPC
    As per Pay Matrix of 7th CPC

    7th CPC Pay Fixation

    What is Concordance table? and How it works?

    Concordance Tables for Defence Pensioners

    Point-wise explanation of transition of Pay in Concordance table

    1. This concordance table comprises of transition of pay pertaining to Sailors from 3rd CPC to 7th CPC. (Seven groups- X,Y,Z, Flight Engineers, Flight Signalers/Flight Gunners, Y Group(S/M, IMSF,Aviation,MA Part II), Z Group (S/M, IMSF)
    2. As per Rule 11 of Special Navy Instructions No.1/S/86 “a sailor who has been drawing the maximum  of the existing scale for more than one year as on 1st January 1986 shall be allowed the next increment in the revised scale with effect from 1st January 1986” The row starts with Max refer to the same condition.
    3. SI stands for Stagnation increment.Those who reached Maximum of scale for more than two years are getting benefit of stagnation increment.
    4. In calculation of increment for X-Group sailors in 6th CPC, X pay may Please be added to Basic and Grade pay X pay for sailors was 1400 during 6th CPC
    5. 6th and 7th CPC does not contain any provision regarding Max of Scale and Stagnation increment Hence not considered.
    6. On trade rationaliztion during the currency of 5th CPC, the personnel in the erstwhile “Spl.Group” drawing higher pay scales were transited to the respective pay groups as per their entry level qualification w.e.f 10 Oct, 1997 in the lower pay scales with basic pay protection.

    Click to View Concordance Tables

    MOD RELAXES CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY TO NAVAL SPECIAL PENSION DUE TO SC DIRECTION

    Supreme Court Order in respect of grant of Special Pension – DESW Order dt. 22.10.2018
    Implementation of Honourable Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 in respect of grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Dated 22.10.2018.
    No.4(10)/2017-D(Pen/Legal)
    Government of India
    Ministry of India
    Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
    D(Pension/Legal)
    Sena Bhawan, New Dehi
    Dated 22.10.2018
    To
    The Chief the Naval Staff
    Subject: Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 in Contempt No.1860/2017 and 924/2018 and MA No. 1067/2018 in Civil Appeal No.2147/2011 with Contempt Petition (C) No.04/2018 in SLP(C) No.19790/2010 for grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964.
    Sir,
    I am directed to refer the cited Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 27.09.2018 and convey sanction of the Competent Authority for grant of Special Pension under Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 to the ex-sailors appointed prior to 03.07.1976 and discharged on or after 03.07.1976 on expiry of 10 years of service.


    2. The amount of pension payable is Rs.9000 (Rupees Nine thousand) per month to each of the ex-sailors under Regulation 95 Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, payable September 2018 as per the Court Order under reference.
    3. The amount of gratuity and DCRG paid, be adjusted the amount payable. Necessary PPO may be issued immediately.
    4. The expenditure incurred on this account will be paid under Charged Expenditure and be debited to the relevant Head of Account.
    5. This issues with concurrence of Ministry Defence vide their U.O. No. 1023/Fin/Pen Dated 17.10.2018.
    6. Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 4(10)/2017-D (Pen/Legal) dated 26th September, 2017 may be treated as cancelled.
    Yours faithfully,
    sd/-
    (Ajay Kumar Agrawal)
    Under Secretary to the Govt of India

    Wednesday, 24 October 2018

    VOPians CONGRATULATE Vn. JAMES, Vn. MOHANARANGAN &THE ENTIRE JOVA TEAM FOR THEIR HUMANITARIAN HELP TO THE OCTOGENARIAN FAMILY OF A VETERAN

    VOPians congratulates Vn. James and JOVA team for helping a 93 years old Family Pensioner who is a Liberalised Family Pensioner. This FP who was drawing Pension of Rs. 14,764/- will now get Rs. 44,465/- and an arrear of Rs. 28,50,000/- . There are so many family pensioners who are being helped by Vn. James and Vn. Mohanarangan team. JWO Jayaraman sir along with Vn. Mohanarangan visited the mother of SEPOY. Subramanian who has sacrificed his Life for the sake of the Nation in 1965 war. There are so many cases like this who are deprived of their legitimate dues. Once again VOP Wishes to thank and Salute the Service of James sir and JOVA.

    Monday, 22 October 2018

    Cabinet Secretary’s Committee – Revision of pension in respect of Personnel below Officer Rank (PBOR) discharged prior to 01.01.2006 – PCDA Circular

    OFICE OF THE PR. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS)
    DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD- 211014
    Circular No. 607

    Dated: 01.10.2018
    Subject :- Implementation of Govt. decision on the recommendation of the Cabinet Secretary’s Committee — Revision of pension in respect of Personnel below Officer Rank (PBOR) discharged prior to 01.01.2006.
    Reference:- Circular No. 430 dated 10.03.2010.
    Complaints/representations are being received in PSAs regarding revision of pension w.e.f. 01.07.2009 by various PDAs in respect of three trades of Air Force viz. ACH GD, Catering Assistant and MT Driver in Group Z instead of Group Y inspite of up gradation of these trades w.e.f. 10.10.1997.
    2. Now, it has been decided by the competent authority vide MoD letter no. 1(4)/2012/D (Pension/Policy) dated 08.03.2018 that revision of pension of under mentioned trades be carried out as per pension revision tables meant for Group Y under Ministry’s letter no. PC 10(1)/2009-D(Pen/Pol) dated 08.03.2010.

    TRADE w.e.f. 10.10.1997
    ACHGD, CAT ASST,MTD- Group IV equated to Group Y
     3. In view of above, it is requested that such type of cases where PDAs are unable to revise pension due to change of group of trades, the same may be referred to the PSAs concerned through Record Office (who in turn will provide certificate/document showing trade of individual at the time of entry and also at the time of discharge) so that Corr. PPO, if necessary, may be issued in case to case basis.
    4. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
    5. The above amendments shall take effect from date of implementation of their respective orders. Arrears in affected cases shall be released by the Pension Disbursing Agencies.
    6. This circular has been uploaded on this office website www.pcdapension.nic.in for dissemination across the all concerned.

    (Sushi! Kumar Singh)
    (Jt.CDA(P)

    Thursday, 18 October 2018

    NAVY CLARIFICATION HAS TO BE CHANGED ON ACCOUNT OF RECENT SC JUDGEMENT

    Clarification on Special Pension for Sailors

    The recent modification judgement by SC has paved way for Naval special pension to all affected sailors instead of case to case basis  as mentioned in the below clarification issued earlier.The eligibility criteria stands good

    1. Numerous representations are being received at IHQ MoD(Navy) as well as NAVPEN from aggrieved ex-sailors whose request for grant of Special Pension has been rejected. It is observed from the representations that the ex-sailors’ grievance is about the Indian Navy having taken a ‘Selective’ and ‘Discriminatory’ method for granting Special Pension to a few among all similarly placed ex-sailors. The clarification regarding grant of special pension is enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. As per Regulation 78 of Navy (Pension) Regulation 1964, it was mandatory for a Personnel Below Officer Rank to render 15 years of colour service to become eligible for Service Pension. All sailors of the Indian Navy were recruited with 10 years initial engagement tenure till 03 Jul 1976 and had two options at the time of discharge to become eligible for pension:- (a) Either to sign for further service of 05 year i.e to complete 15 years of colour service which is mandatory to earn service pension. Or (b) To enrol for Indian Fleet Reserve for 10 years to earn Reservist Pension. This enrolment into Fleet Reserve was guided by Indian Fleet Reserve Act of 1939 and the enrolment was neither a matter of right nor was automatic as per Reg.6 of Indian Reserve Act 1939. 3. Among the sailors who volunteered for the second option mentioned at Para 2(b) above, only those who met requirements of service i.e certain qualifications in terms of character, efficiency, age and medical category, were drafted to Fleet Reserve. Their conditions of service were entirely different from those who had signed for first option, in that, they were called for training once every two years and were paid retention fee and TA/DA/Pay for the training period. 4. Gol had revised the initial engagement tenure of all sailors to 15 years vide letter AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D(N-II) dated 03 Jul 76. By the same letter, the Indian Fleet Reserve Service was discontinued. Those sailors who were already enrolled prior to 03 Jul 1976 in the Indian Fleet Reserve were allowed to continue and complete their respective tenure and were sanctioned Reservist Pension. 5. Thus there is a category of ex-sailors who were discharged after 03 Jul 1976 with initial engagement of 10 years but since enrolment into fleet reserve was done away with, they were not granted Reservist Pension. These personnel approached the court for grant of Reservist Pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order dated 27 Oct 16 in CA No. 2147/2011 and 8566/2014 for grant of Special Pension stating, that “all sailors appointed prior to 3rd July, 1976 and whose tenure of initial active service/ empanelment period expired on or after 3rd July, 1976 may be eligible for a Special Pension under Regulation 95, subject, however, to fulfilling other requirements. In that, they had not exercised the option to take discharge on expiry of engagement (as per Section 16 of the Act of 1957) and yet were not and could not be drafted by the Competent Authority to the Fleet Reserve because of the policy of discontinuing the Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f 3rd Jul 1976”. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order is being implemented on case-to-case basis as per Gol, MoD/D(Pension/Legal) Letter No. 4/10/2017/D(P/L) dated 26th September 2017. The letter states that sailors appointed prior to 03 Jul 1976 and discharged on or after 03 Jul 1976 on expiry of 10 years active service, subject to following conditions are eligible for grant of Special Pension:- (a) The Ex-Sailor was not and could not be drafted to Fleet Reserve Service because of the discontinuation of the policy. (b) The Ex-Sailor did not exercise the option to take discharge on expiry of engagement period i.e the Sailor opted for retention in active service, but not granted extension to qualify for pensionable service. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order is being implemented in true letter and spirit and there is no discrimination or violation of rules.

    Thursday, 4 October 2018

    Govt has no power to withhold Pensionary Benefits if departmental or judicial proceeding are pending: Supreme Court

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2013 
    (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009) 
    State of Jharkhand & Ors. ….. Appellant(s) 
    Vs. 
    Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. …..Respondent(s) 
    WITH 
    C.A. No. 6771/2013 
    (arising out of SLP(C) No. 1428 of 2009) 

    J U D G M E N T 
    A.K. Sikri, J 
    1. Leave granted. pensionary
    2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings? The High Court has - answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent. Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal. 
    3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following: 
    The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State. Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002. The appellant sanctioned the release and payment of General Provident Fund on 25.5.2003. Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the Appellant sanctioned 90 percent provisional pension to the respondent. Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period (30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002) was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases/ departmental inquiry against him. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity. 
    4. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non-release of the other aforesaid dues, the respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc. in terms of Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980. The appellant, thereafter, considered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009 Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the - impugned orders dated 31.10.2007. The Division Bench has held that the question is squarely covered by the full Bench decision of that Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2007 (4) JCR 1. In the said full Bench Judgment dated 28.8.2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances of the subject matter, the High Court has held: 
    “ To sum up the answer for the two questions are as follows: 
    (i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the Proceeding.
    (ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law”.
    5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the fact that in so far as the Pension Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding a part of pension or gratuity. He, however, submitted that there are administrative instructions which permit withholding of a part of pension and gratuity. His submission was that when the rules are silent on a particular aspect, gap can be filled by the - administrative instructions which was well settled legal position, laid down way back in the year 1968 by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 111. He, thus, argued that the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was no power with the Government to withhold the part of pension or gratuity, pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings. 
    6. The aforesaid arguments of the learned Senior Counsel based on the judgment in Sant Ram Sharma would not cut any ice in so far as present case is concerned, because of the reason this case has no applicability in the given case. Sant Ram judgment governs the field of administrative law wherein the Constitution Bench laid down the principle that the rules framed by the authority in exercise of powers contained in an enactment, would also have statutory force. Though the administration can issue administrative instructions for the smooth administrative function, such administrative instructions cannot supplant the rules. However, these administrative instructions can supplement the statutory rules by taking care of those situations where the statutory rules are silent. This ratio of that judgment is narrated in the following manner: 
    “It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade - officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions and inconsistent with the rules already framed”. 
    There cannot be any quarrel on this exposition of law which is well grounded in a series of judgments pronounced post Sant Ram Sharma case as well. However, the question which is posed in the present case is altogether different. 
    7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: 
    “The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 
    What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 
    The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.[1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) IILLJ 377SC”. 
    8. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away  without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 
    9. Having explained the legal position, let us first discuss the rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is admittedly governed by - 
    Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under: 
    “43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement”. 
    From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), following position emerges:- 
    (i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding.
    (ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the department proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending.
    (iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings.
    (iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before.
    10. There is also a Proviso to Rule 43(b), which provides that:-
    “A. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment.
    i. Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government.
    ii Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.
    iii Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made:- 
    B. Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instated in accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a) and 
    C. The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. 
    It is apparent that the proviso speaks about the institution of proceedings. For initiating proceedings, Rule 43(b) puts some conditions, i.e, Department proceeding as indicated in Rule 43(b), if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty, then it shall not be instituted except:-
    (a) With the sanction of the Government,
    (b) It shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceedings.
    (c) Such proceedings shall be conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with the proceedings by which dismissal of the services can be made.
    Thus, in so far as the proviso is concerned that deals with condition for initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation within which such proceedings can be initiated. 
    11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for withholding of the pension/ gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. 
    12. Right to receive pension was recognized as right to property by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar; (1971) 2 SCC 330, as is apparent from the following discussion:
    “29. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a Government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same. 
    30. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and the respondents by an executive order dated June 12, 1968 have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on August 5, 1966. There is only a bald averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, was not prepared to take up the position that the right to receive pension cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension. We understood the learned counsel to urge that if the State had passed an order granting pension and later on resiles from that order, the latter order may be considered to affect the petitioner's right regarding property so as to attract Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. 
    31. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a reference to the material provisions in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognise the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein. 
    32. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India A.I.R. 1962 Pun 503. It was held that such a right constitutes "property" and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant Singh I.L.R. 1965 Pun 1 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is "property" within the meaning of  Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as "property" cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority. 
    33. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab I.L.R. 1967 P & H 278. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High C.A. No.6770/2013 @ SLP (C) No. 1427 of 2009 Court decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. 
    34. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde and Anr. MANU/SC/0030/1968 : [1968]3SCR489 had to consider the question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property". 
    35. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of  Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1)of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law”. 
    13. In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651, this Court recognized that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty- Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-- Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. 
    14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: 
    “300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” 
    Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 
    15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold - even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different. 
    16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each. 
    [Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan] 

    [JusticeA.K. Sikri] 
    New Delhi 
    August 14, 2013