[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nalni Kant And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 April, 2026
1
CWP-26725-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-26725-2023
Nalni Kant and others
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
Reserved on: 28.01.2026
Pronounced on:06.04.2026
Uploaded on:06.04.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. J.P. Rana and Mr. Sukhmandeep Singh, Advocates for the
petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the circular/clarification dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure
P-4) issued by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department, which
CWP-26725-2023
stipulates that Travel Concession and Old Age Allowance are not
permissible to retired Government officials against whom departmental or
judicial proceedings are pending and who are drawing provisional pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the
petitioners are retired employees of the Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation (hereinafter 'PSWC') (respondent no.2-Corporation), having
retired from their respective posts, such as Warehouse Manager, District
Manager, and Godown Assistant. It was argued that the respondent-
Corporation, through a notification dated 20.03.1996 (Annexure P-3),
introduced a 'Pension & Gratuity Scheme' for its employees from
01.01.1986, which was explicitly stated to be "at par with State government
employees" along with allied benefits like Gratuity, LTC, and medical
facilities.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the Government of Punjab, vide
letter dated 31.08.1989 (Annexure P-1), granted Travel Concession equal to
one month's basic pension after every block of two years to its pensioners.
Furthermore, under Rule 6.18 of the Punjab CSR Vol. II (Annexure P-2), the
State Government provides Old Age Allowance to its pensioners on a
graduated scale starting from 65 years of age. By virtue of the respondent-
Corporation's pension scheme being at par with the State, the petitioners
were entitled to these benefits.
4. However, it was contended that the respondents, by issuing the
impugned clarification dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-4), have arbitrarily
CWP-26725-2023
and illegally stopped the aforesaid benefits. Learned counsel argued that this
clarification, which states that travel concession and old age allowance are
not permissible to retirees drawing provisional pension due to pending
departmental or judicial proceedings, has no sanction under any statutory
rule. Unlike gratuity and leave encashment, for which specific provisions
exist under Rule 2.2(c)(1) and Rule 9.14 of the Punjab CSR Vol. II, Part 1
(Annexures P-5 and P-6) to withhold payment during pending proceedings,
there is no such enabling provision for withholding travel concession and
old age allowance. Thus, it was contended that executive instructions cannot
override statutory provisions.
5. Learned counsel argued that the impugned clarification is ultra
vires, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. It creates an unreasonable classification between
retirees facing proceedings and those who are not, despite the fact that the
rules governing provisional pension mandate that such retirees receive 100%
provisional pension, which is equal in quantum to the regular pension of
other retirees. Since the old age allowance is a component of pension, its
denial results in the petitioners receiving less than 100% pension, thereby
violating the parity mandated by Rules 2.2(c)(1) and 9.14.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the
pension scheme, introduced vide notification dated 24.04.1996 (Annexure
R-2/1), expressly provides that the retiral benefits of its employees shall be
at par with those of State Government employees. Consequently, any
CWP-26725-2023
instructions issued by the State Government from time to time would be
equally applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation. It was,
therefore, contended that the stoppage of Old Age Allowance and Travel
Concession in respect of retired employees against whom departmental
proceedings are pending, in terms of the instructions dated 22.12.2022
(Annexure P-4), does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
7. However, learned counsel was unable to dispute that the
clarification dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-4) is in the nature of executive
instructions, and that no corresponding statutory amendment has been
carried out in the Punjab Civil Services Rules to provide for the withholding
of travel concession and old age allowance. Learned counsel was also unable
to point out any statutory provision under which the aforesaid benefits could
be withheld.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record with their able assistance.
9. Admittedly, the respondent-Corporation vide notification dated
24.04.1996 (Annexure R-2/1) had introduced a 'Pension & Gratuity
Scheme' for its employees. The scheme explicitly states that Pension for
retired/retiring employees of the respondent-Corporation shall be at par with
that of State Government employees along with allied benefits such as
Gratuity, LTC, medical facilities, etc., as amended from time to time, w.e.f
01.01.1986. The relevant portion of the notification dated 24.04.1996
CWP-26725-2023
(Annexure R-2/1) is reproduced as under:
"With the approval of State Govt. vide their memo No.3/71/92- Agri.
II(IX)/10258 dated 13.11.95 and the Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation vide resolution No.74.19 and Supplementary Resolution
No.74.1 in their meeting held on 2.1.96 and as stand notified in
Punjab Govt. gazette of dated 29th March, 1996. 'PENSION &
GRATUITY SCHEME' is hereby, introduced for the employees of the
Corporation w.e.f. 1.1.89 on the following terms & conditions:-
1) Pension scheme for the retired/retiring employees of the PSWC will
be at par with that of State Government employees along-with allied
benefits like gratuity, LTC, medical facilities etc. as existing and as
may be amended from time to time with effect from 1.1.86. However,
where benefits of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act are more
favourable, the provisions of the Act will prevail;..."
10. Thus, the Punjab Civil Services Rules are applicable to the
employees of the respondent-Corporation, including the petitioners, and
they are entitled to the benefits flowing therefrom. Furthermore, such
employees are also entitled to Travel Concession and Old Age Allowance in
terms of the letter dated 31.08.1989 (Annexure P-1) and Rule 6.18 of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (Annexure P-2), respectively. It
must be pointed out that Rule 6.18 expressly recognises Old Age Allowance
as "additional pension"; and accordingly, it forms part of the pensionary
benefits to which retired employees are entitled under the Punjab CSR Vol.
II. Relevant portion of Rule 6.18 is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
CWP-26725-2023
"6.18. In addition to the pension or family pension admissible under these
rules, the old pensioners or family pensioners shall be entitled to an
additional pension calculated on the basis of their age and basic
pension/family pension at the rates given below :-
Age of the pensioner Rate of additional pension or
or family pensioner family pension
From 65 years to less Five percent
than 70 years
From 70 years to less Ten percent
than 75 years
From 75 years to less Fifteen percent
than 80 years
From 80 years to less Twenty-five percent
than 85 years
From 85 years to less Thirty-five percent
than 90 years
From 90 years to less Forty-five percent
than 95 years
From 95 years to less Fifty-five percent
than 100 years
100 years or more Hundred percent"
(Emphasis added)
11. However, vide clarification/instructions dated 22.12.2022
(Annexure P-4), the Finance Department, Government of Punjab decided
not to disburse travel concession and Old Age Allowance to those retired
officials/officers against whom departmental or judicial proceedings are
pending and who are drawing provisional pension. It was further clarified
that the aforesaid benefits shall be released to such employees only upon
their complete exoneration in the pending proceedings. The relevant part of
CWP-26725-2023
the clarification/instructions dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-4) reads as
under:
"2. After considering the matter cited in the subject the Govt. has
taken decision as under :-
The travel concession and old age allowance is not permissible
to Punjab Govt. retired officials/officers against whom
departmental or judicial proceedings might be pending and
they might be drawing provisional pension.
The officials/officers in whose favour decisions are taken to
fully exonerate them in the pending matters against them shall
be allowed payment of arrears of regular pension along with
travel concession and Old age allowance due to them."
12. This Court is of the considered view that it is settled law that
executive or administrative instructions do not have the authority to amend
or override statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in
derogation of the statutory framework. This is for the reason that
administrative directions, being non-statutory in character, do not carry the
force of law. On the contrary, statutory rules, framed under the authority of
an enabling statute, have the binding force of law, provided they are
consistent with and not repugnant to the parent Act. Thus, while statutory
rules occupy the field with full legal sanctity, mere executive instructions
cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand their scope. Reliance in this
regard can be placed on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Yash Charitable Trust vs. Union of India, 2026 INSC 96; Paluru
CWP-26725-2023
Ramkrishnaiah vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166; State of U.P. vs.
Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751; Swapan Kumar Pal vs.
Samitabhar Chakraborty, 2001(2) SCT 1104 (SC); and Ram Ganesh
Tripathi vs. State of U.P., 1997(1) SCT 494 (SC).
13. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Hira
Lal v. State of Bihar, 2020(2) SCT 200, speaking through Justice Indu
Malhotra, has observed as follows in this regard:
"13.1 In our considered view, the Circulars dated 22.08.1974 and
31.10.1974, and Government Resolution No. 3104 dated 31.07.1980,
were merely administrative instructions/executive orders. They were
not issued in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the
Constitution and cannot be said to have the force of law.
The Government Resolution dated 31.07.1980 came up for
consideration before this Court in State of Jharkhand and Ors. v.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 210. After
considering Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and Government
Resolution No. 3104 dated 31.07.1980, this Court held that the State
had no authority or power to withhold the full amount of pension or
gratuity of a Government servant during the pendency of judicial or
departmental proceedings. This Court held that:
"9. Having explained the legal position, let us first discuss the
rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is
admittedly governed by the 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
CWP-26725-2023
circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under:
.............
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.
..............
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.
CWP-26725-2023
14. .....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.
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."
(emphasis supplied)
It was held that pension is 'property' within the meaning of
Article 300A of the Constitution, and executive instructions which
do not have any statutory sanction cannot be termed as "law"
within the meaning of Article 300A. It was further held that in the
absence of statutory rules permitting withholding of pension or
gratuity, the State could not do so by way of executive instructions.
It was observed that "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".
CWP-26725-2023
xx xx
xx
14. In view of the above, we hold that the Respondent-State was
unjustified in withholding 10% pension of the Appellant under
administrative Circulars dated 22.08.1974 and 31.10.1974, and
Government Resolution No. 3104 dated 31.07.1980 after the
Appellant had superannuated on 31.03.2008."
(Emphasis added)
14. A Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Ishar Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1994(1) SCT 563, while interpreting the provisions relating to grant
of pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, has categorically held that
the Rules ought to be construed in a manner that favours the retiree, so as to
secure the grant of retiral benefits rather than deprive him of his livelihood,
particularly the element of social security ensured at the twilight of his life.
However, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that a balance must be
maintained between securing social and economic justice for retirees and
preserving the right of the State to enforce discipline and ensure good
conduct among its employees, both during service and even after retirement.
It was held that the State's interests stand adequately safeguarded under the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, particularly in view of the power vested in it to
withhold other retiral benefits, such as death-cum-retirement gratuity and
leave encashment, in specified circumstances. Accordingly, the State
Legislature never intended to deprive a pensioner of his right to pension
except in strict accordance with the prescribed rules. The relevant extracts of
CWP-26725-2023
the judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"51. Keeping in view what has been stated in the earlier part of
judgment I would endorse the view that the pension rules need and
must receive liberal construction inspired by broad and general spirit
as the rules are meant for securing social and economic protection of
life. Since justice is the prime consideration to a retiree, it should be
real justice keeping in view the ground realities. The rules should not
be read in a way as it would render them into providing mere
formality and therapeutic justice while interpreting rules providing
for social security. The rules are to be read in a reasonable way
according to the spirit. There may be some exaggeration for taking
note of the rules of interpretation. There is no doubt that while
interpreting the rules, the Court should lean in favour of retiree to
grant the retiral benefits rather than to deprive him of his livelihood,
particularly social security granted on the eve of one's duskin life.
At the same time it cannot be ignored that once has to balance
between securing social and economic freedom and justice and the
right of the State to enforce good conduct among the Government
employees during service and even after retirement. The State
cannot be left high and dry and unable to punish a delinquent solely
on the ground that he has retired. The employees cannot be
permitted to go scot free for his objectionable acts and conduct during
his service or after retirement solely on the happening of the event of
superannuation. I may add here that one of the objects of the rules in
providing powers to the State to withhold pension is to enforce among
the employees performance of duty faithfully, vigilantly, dutifully and
loyally during the tenure of service and implied conditions of good
conduct after the retirement.
xx xx
CWP-26725-2023
xx
60. Rule 2.2(c) postulates the right of the State with respect to
affecting pension in a situation where the departmental proceedings
initiated during service continue and the delinquent attains the age of
superannuation before a finding is returned with respect to the
charges attributed. It is enjoined by the rule that the State would grant
provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would
have admissible. It would be reasonable to infer the intent of the
rule keeping in view the provision of Chapter 9, particularly Rules
9.9 and 9.14 which provide that 100% provisional pension would be
granted in either of the cases viz. when the State is unable to
determine the pension for numerous reasons provided by the Rules
of (sic) when departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are
pending. The only exception to the restrictions on the powers
conferred on the State was with respect to withholding of gratuity
till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings...
xx xx
xx
62. In view of the observations made above, keeping in view equity
and object of pension after balancing the rights of the State and the
pensioner and having regard to all the circumstances the cardinal
tenets emerge (1) Pension is a substantive right. It is a right to
property. It is a condition of service. It is an ordinary incident of
retirement (2) State legislature never intended to denude the
pensioner of his right to it on his retirement except in accordance
with rules. (3) It is a completely protected right of a retiree. (4)
Though the Rules preserved the power of the State at the time to
sanctioning the pension to withhold or withdraw, either partly or
wholly for specified period or permanently it can be exercised only
CWP-26725-2023
in the event of misconduct or for loss caused to State during service
or in case of conviction in judicial proceedings.
63. The same power can be exercised after retirement not only for the
same reason but also if the pensioner has committed a grave
misconduct or has been convicted of serious crime. Reading of rules
warrants an inference that pension shall be deemed to have been
guaranteed on retirement irrespective of the fact whether it is granted
provisionally or finally.
64. The grant of provisional pension has been provided only in
limited situations i.e. when the departmental proceedings are
pending or the State has been unable to determine the pension,
though the State has provided a time table to complete the pension
work commencing from 24 to 30 months before the date of
retirement of the pensioner provided for by Chapter 9.
65. Since the statutory rules provide for sanction of 100% provisional
pension, I fail to comprehend that the legislature would have intended
to affect the pension in anticipation of finding the pensioner guilty of
misconduct or his conviction in judicial proceedings or finding him
having caused pecuniary loss to the State during the tenure of service.
The State cannot escape its liability to pay pension solely in
anticipation of the liability of the pensioner being fixed in
disciplinary proceedings initiated. Allowing the State to pay reduced
pension in anticipation of an adverse finding in a pending
proceeding as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents,
in my considered view would be not only oppressive to the retiree but
also amount to punishment before the trial. As regards protection of
the State's interest, these have been sufficiently protected
particularly when the State has been empowered to withhold all
other retiral benefits like death-cum-retirement gratuity, salary etc.
payment on account of leave encashment to which an employee is
CWP-26725-2023
entitled on the eve of retirement. The pension is granted and
protected with a view to provide subsistence to the elder members of
the society. Another significant factor which can be taken note of is
that no recovery can be made from the pension except with the
consent of the pensioner for any amount due to the Government
from the pensioner. It is thus a deliberate and conscious provision
enacted by the legislature in the rules. Petitioners enacted by the
legislature in the rules. Petitioners cannot be deprived of their
legitimate rights inferred by the statutory rules on excusals, etc."
(Emphasis added)
15. Adverting to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II shows that as per Rule 2.2(c)(1) read
with Rule 9.14, if any departmental or judicial proceeding is pending against
an officer, he shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of
his retirement to the date on which, upon conclusion of such proceedings,
final orders are passed, a provisional pension equal to the maximum pension
which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service up
to the date of retirement or if he was under suspension on the date of
retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was
placed under suspension . However, the Rule explicitly states that no
gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the
conclusion of such proceedings and of final orders thereon. Thus, the State
has the power to withhold gratuity/death-cum-retirement gratuity during the
pendency of such proceedings.
CWP-26725-2023
16. Similarly, Rule 8.21(aa) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol
I, Part I governs the payment and withholding of leave encashment to an
employee. It states that the authority competent to grant leave may withhold
whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government
employee who retires from service on superannuation while under
suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against
him, if in the opinion of such authority, there is a possibility of some money
becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against
him.
17. However, there are no statutory provisions under the Punjab
Civil Services Rules that empower the employer to withhold payment of Old
Age Allowance and Traveling Concession during the pendency of
departmental or judicial proceedings. Rather, the power to withhold the
aforesaid benefits was introduced for the first time through the
clarification/instructions dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-4). In light of the
above-cited precedents, this Court is of the considered view that a person
cannot be deprived of these retiral benefits without the authority of law,
which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the
Constitution. Thus, the attempt of the respondents to withhold traveling
concession and old age allowance without any statutory provision and under
the umbrage of administrative instructions cannot be allowed. The denial of
post-retiral monetary benefits during the pendency of proceedings must be
supported by a specific statutory provision, and in the absence of such
CWP-26725-2023
authority, it would amount to an executive curtailment of an accrued
statutory entitlement.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned circular/clarification dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure
P-4) issued by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department hereby
stands quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the
pending dues of Old Age Allowance and Traveling Concession to the
petitioners and all other identically circumstanced employees within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It must
be clarified that since the impugned circular/clarification dated 22.12.2022
(Annexure P-4) stands quashed, the present judgement shall be treated as a
judgment in rem, intending to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they have approached this Court or not.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
06.04.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
