Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In the present case, as is discernible from the record, that it is only on 25.9.2018, two orders came to be passed requiring the petitioners to vacate the quarters, inter alia, on the ground that the quarters are reserved for the post of pumpmen till their tenure of service and is not available for allocation, as the petitioners have retired from the service of GIDC. Undeniably, after 25.9.2018, no action has been taken by GIDC till recently, i.e. on 19.8.2020, when notices came to be issued by GIDC to the petitioners under the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Evidently, GIDC has not taken any action according to law to enforce its right to recover the possession of the quarters or determined the so- called penal rent, in absence whereof, it was and is not permissible to GIDC to recover summarily the alleged dues as per its whims and fancies, more particularly in view of well settled proposition of law that pension is hard earned benefits which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property as per the provisions of Article 300A and the person concerned cannot be deprived of pension without the authority of law.

C/SCA/13431/2018 JUDGMENT The Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein it has been held that 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 matters 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. The Apex Court has further observed that it is the hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of 'property' as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that a person cannot be deprived of pension without the authority of law. The relevant paras 7, 8, 14 and 15 read thus:

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 300A of the Constitution of India.

14. Article 300A 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 300A 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.