#Pension Rules

Patna HC quashed a 75% pension cut, ruling departmental proceeding on 2006-09 allegations initiated in 2015 was time-barred under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules and violated natural justice by ignoring defence and relying on ex-parte report.

Patna HC held that the 20% and 30% extra pension increments apply only after a pensioner actually turns 80 or 85, not from the start of those years. Bihar must recalculate payouts and the benefit period is narrowed. All pensioners under the state’s old-age scheme are affected.

Bombay High Court rules part-time service qualifies as 50% of qualifying service for pension under the Old Pension Scheme, interpreting Rule 57 Note 1 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The judgment clarifies eligibility for employees with part-time service seeking superannuation pension benefits.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that recovery from retired employees beyond one year of retirement is illegal, relying on Supreme Court precedent in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and state circulars. The court quashed an Rs. 80,463 deduction from a retired employee's leave encashment, reinforcing that post-retirement recoveries without prior notice violate principles of natural justice and state policy.

Bombay High Court holds that a government servant can unilaterally withdraw a voluntary retirement notice before the intended date without prior approval, striking down arbitrary rejection orders. The ruling mandates payment of salary arrears and consequential benefits, reinforcing the right to reconsider retirement decisions under service law.

Tripura High Court holds that suspended government employees are entitled to provisional pension, leave encashment, and GPF payments based on their last drawn pay, not subsistence allowance. The court also imposes 7% interest for delayed disbursements, reinforcing strict compliance with pension rules and protecting employees' financial rights during suspension.

Telangana High Court rules that disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts as a criminal acquittal violate natural justice. The court directed the refund of Rs. 3,00,000 recovered from the petitioner, emphasizing that acquittal on merits precludes departmental penalties under pension rules.

Tripura High Court rules that a valid permanent disability certificate issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is sufficient to claim family pension, rejecting administrative delays that deny statutory rights. The judgment reinforces that bureaucratic hurdles cannot override legal entitlements of mentally disabled dependents.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that recovery of excess pension after 5 years of retirement violates natural justice and the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih precedent. The court quashed the recovery order and directed a full refund within 30 days, reinforcing strict timelines for pension finalization under the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that recovery of Rs. 1,56,086 from a retired employee's gratuity violates the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih judgment and state circulars mandating finalization of pension cases before retirement. The court emphasized that post-retirement recoveries without prior notice or hearing breach principles of natural justice and administrative law.

Bombay High Court holds that recovery of excess pay from retired employees is impermissible under Supreme Court guidelines in Rafiq Masih, even if pay was erroneously fixed.