Not Bounty Right Rajasthan High Court Retired Officials Pension

Calling pension not a “bounty” but a statutory right, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed the plea of a retired public official and held that the permanent withholding of his 100 per cent pension in the absence of a “mala fide, corruption or dishonest motive” but solely based on a quasi-judicial (almost judicial) order was arbitrary.

Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit was hearing the plea of a retired Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) officer, who was accused of wrongly decreeing a matter in favour of a person in Churu while posted as the Deputy Director of the Integrated Child Development Services and as the Officer-in-Charge of Prashasan Gaon Ke Sang Abhiyan in 2001. The charge was stated to have been confined to “erroneous exercise of jurisdiction”.

The officer, who was chargesheeted on the day of his retirement, faced disciplinary proceedings and the authority imposed the “extreme penalty of permanent withholding” of his entire pension. According to the petitioner, the punishment was imposed nearly eight years after his retirement and more than 23 years after the incident.

The ruling noted that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminated in the punishment order of April 30, 2025.

“Such unexplained delay has inevitably prejudiced the petitioner and further undermines the sustainability of the proceedings. Even otherwise, the punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate. The petitioner has been permanently deprived of his entire pension. Pension is not a bounty but a valuable statutory right earned by an employee for the services rendered during his career,” the ruling underscored.

He was served with the chargesheet on August 30, 2017, on the day of his retirement. The chargesheet was stated to have been served on the basis of the January 10, 2002, quasi-judicial order.

The retired officer, through his action more than two decades ago, was said to have granted the rights for the use of land meant for pasture for cultivation. The government alleged that the officer had exceeded his jurisdiction and committed grave negligence by granting such rights in violation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

The officer argued that the order was a reasoned exercise of his quasi-judicial powers and was passed after considering revenue records, the patwari’s report, the regularisation committee’s recommendations and the tehsildar’s written statement, which did not object. No appeal or revision had been filed against the 2002 order, allowing it to attain finality.

He also challenged the departmental inquiry, saying crucial documents were not supplied, the principal witness, the then tehsildar, was not examined, and his own statement was not recorded. The inquiry ultimately found the charge proved, leading to an order dated April 30, 2025 permanently withholding 100 per cent of his pension.

Assistant General Counsel Nitesh Mathur argued that the proceedings were legally initiated under the applicable service and pension rules and could continue after Soni’s retirement under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

The state maintained that this was not simply an “erroneous judicial decision” but “grave negligence and misconduct”, and that absence of corruption or personal gain did not by itself absolve him. Mathur denied any violation of natural justice, arguing that the officer was given adequate opportunity to submit his defence, participate in the inquiry and respond to the inquiry report.

The court pointed out that another circumstance which cannot be ignored is the inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The quasi-judicial order in question was passed on January 10, 2002, whereas the charge-sheet came to be served only on August 30, 2017, nearly 15 years thereafter and on the very date of the petitioner’s retirement. No satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay has been furnished.

After going through the submissions, the high court held, “Such an allegation, even if assumed to be correct, may at best disclose an erroneous quasi-judicial determination; it does not, by itself, constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary action,” it stated.

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More