Wasade, Ad v. Ms. Arti Bansal, SPC with Ms. Shruti Goel

Judgment

1. The petitioner was working as a Development Officer in the National Insurance Company Ltd for nearly 23 years when, on 19 August 2005, he was issued a memorandum proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground of having remained absent from duty without authorisation.

2. Disciplinary proceedings followed, resulting in an order dated 11 May 2006, by the competent Disciplinary Authority, penalising the petitioner with a punishment of compulsory retirement. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2025 11:14:47 W.P.(C) 14115/2009

3. Though the enquiry report during these proceedings was in the petitioner’s favour, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report, issued a disagreement note and, thereafter, proceeded to pass the aforenoted punishment order dated 11 May 2006.

4. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 8 September 2006.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by means of WP (C) 6946/2007, challenging the order of compulsory retirement. That writ petition was unconditionally withdrawn on 8 October 2009.

6. The petitioner has, thereafter, instituted the present writ petition. The only grievance ventilated in this writ petition is with respect to forfeiture of the petitioner’s past service for the purposes of his pensionary benefits, as envisaged by Clause 22 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 19951.

7. The petitioner has impugned the vires and constitutional validity of Clause 22 of the GIEPS and has sought release of pensionary benefits to him, despite the fact that he had been compulsory retired from service.

8. Clause 22 of the GIEPS reads thus: Forfeiture of service-

22. Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee Signature Not Verified 1 “GIEPS” hereinafter. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2025 11:14:47 W.P.(C) 14115/2009 from the service of the Corporation or a Company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not quality for pensionary benefits.

9. We have heard Mr. Aman Varma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Rana, learned Counsel for Respondent 2 and Mr. Kamal Mehta, learned Counsel for Respondent 3. Respondent 1 is only a proforma party and is not represented today.

10. Though the main challenge in this writ petition is with respect to the validity of Clause 22 of the GIEPS, Mr. Varma essentially sought to argue that the forfeiture of the entire service of the officer for the purposes of the pensionary benefits, consequent on his compulsory retirement, was inordinately harsh and, therefore, unsustainable in law. He has sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Srivastava v UOI2.

11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we confess our disinclination to interfere in this matter.

12. Though Mr. Varma did not, at the Bar, advance any submissions with respect to the issue of whether the provision for forfeiture of past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits could be contained in Clause 22 of the GIEPS, nonetheless, inasmuch as the said ground has been taken in the writ petition and the written submissions filed by the petitioner, it becomes necessary for us to address it. Signature Not Verified 2 (1995) 6 SCC 227 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2025 11:14:47 W.P.(C) 14115/2009

13. The position in law in this regard is no longer res integra and stands covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v Haresh C. Banerjee3, which considered the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar4.

14. The Supreme Court has observed, in Haresh C. Banerjee, thus: “4. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and to receive pension is a valuable right of a government servant is a well-settled legal proposition. The question in the present case, however, is not about the deprivation of the said right by the Government by an executive order but is about the constitutional validity of Rule 10(1) providing for withholding of pension or part thereof in certain cases.

5. Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) have been repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6- 1979. The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. It is now a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was a fundamental right at the time of framing of the Rules in 1971. The question is whether a rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution providing for withholding of the pension would ipso facto be ultra vires, being violative of Article 19(1)(f) as it stood in 1971 when the Rules were framed. this Court to a decision of The High Court has, in the impugned judgment, made 6. reference in Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar for coming to the conclusion that the rule in question is ultra vires. In the said case, this Court held that the right to receive pension was wrongly withheld by an executive order. The judgment in Deokinandan Prasad case in fact lends support to the vires of the rule since it was held in that case that an employee can be deprived of the pension by an authority of law. That authority, in the present case, is contained in the Rules [Rule 10(1)], that were framed providing for withholding of the pension. Various State

7. regulations vest power of withholding or reduction of pension on compliance with the principles of natural justice. The question of an order withholding rules or Signature Not Verified