[2026:RJ-JP:11994] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6797/2020 Dr. Chandra Prakash Wadhwa S/o Late Sh. Nand Gopal Wadhwa, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Wadhwa Sadan, Vikas Path, Alwar, Present Address - C- 49, Ranjeet Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Director, Pension Deptt. Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta Mr. Harsh Saraswat Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekriti Sharma Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition filed with following prayer:- (i) Pleased to direct the respondent to make payment of his post retiral benefits of Pension, Gratuity, benefit of Commutation, etc. which became due on 31.12.2009 itself, with interest @ 12% p.a. The amount of pension and Gratuity may be directed to be calculated after grant of benefit of pay fixation in the revised pay scale rules and the benefit of selection scales on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, which he had [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (2 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] completed on 04.11.2008 i.e. much prior to retirement. (ii) Please to direct the respondent to grant benefit of pay fixation in the revised pay scale and the benefit of selection scales on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service, (iii) Please to direct the respondent to make the payment of NPA, due T.A. and medical bills with interest @12% p.a. (ii) Please to direct the respondent to pay respondent @12% p.a. on delayed payment of earned leaves. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is a physically challenged person, got retired on 31.12.2009 and till date he has not been paid any of the retirement benefits. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed a writ petition which was allowed by this Hon'ble Court on 25.07.2012 but the order was recalled on 04.04.2014. He further submitted that the respondents in their reply have defended their action on the ground that an investigation is pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act and until conclusion of same, the petitioner is not entitled for any retiral benefits. He also submitted that it was the duty of the respondents to make payment within 60 days but till date no payment has been made and the petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondents. He also submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for interest as the departmental proceeding has been dropped against the petitioner, and now due to pendency of frivolous proceedings, the petitioner was denied his rightful claim. He further referred the documents and submitted that the petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (3 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] is entitled for grant of benefit of selection scale on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service and also of the Non-practising Allowance (NPA). 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and he submitted that the petitioner has already been paid gratuity, encashment of leave and also the provision pension. He further submitted that as per latest details made available by ACB, the investigation is still pending against the petitioner and without conclusion the Department cannot pay remaining dues. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner got superannuated on 31.12.2009 from the post of Deputy Controller, Government Rajeev Gandhi Hospital, Alwar. The petitioner has filed a writ petition number 10625/2011, which was disposed on 25.07.2012, with the direction to the respondents to give retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. On an application by the State Government to recall the order, a coordinate bench has recalled the order on 04.04.2014, on the ground that concealment of pendency of FIRs against the petitioner and same is a relevant fact. 6. The petitioner was served a charge sheet on 09.07.2009, but order dated 23.04.2015 indicate that the petitioner was exonerated from the charges. An order for payment of 300 days of privilege leave was issued on 18.06.2016, but as per petitioner same is not paid. The material on record also indicate that the petitioner has claimed selection scale on completion of 10, 20 and [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (4 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] 30 years and also fixation as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. A letter dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure-R2) indicate that investigation in FIR number 321/2017 and 322/2017 is pending and copy of same has been placed on record by the respondents. 7. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit to show that despite order to sanction gratuity, pension and encashment of leave, same were not paid, and only provisional pension has been paid. The benefit of commutation was also not given to the petitioner. An additional affidavit of Dr. Ravi Prakash Mathur, Director (Public Health), is filed on record with a report dated 24.05.2024 that the investigation in FIR numbers 321/2017, 257/2016 and 322/2017 is still pending with ACB. In such circumstances, we are considering this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 8. The petitioner, who is a doctor, has retired from the post of Deputy Controller on 31.12.2009 and after sixteen years of his retirement, he is before the Court with his writ petition for retiral benefits. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet just before his retirement but was exonerated from the charges on 23.04.2015. The material indicates that three FIRs were registered, one in 2016 and two in 2017, and after more than eight years, the investigation has not been concluded. Whether in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for a writ from this Court? 9. To consider the question, it is appropriate to refer judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., reported as 2013 12 SCC 210, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering Article 300A of the [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (5 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] Constitution of India, has held that the gratuity and pensions are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continues, faithful and unblemish service. A right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300A of Constitution of India. For ready reference, we are referring following paragraphs from the judgment:- 7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: “The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service - What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (6 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the 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 maters 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. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) IILLJ 377SC”. 12. A right to receive pension was recognized as right to property by the Constitution Bench Judgment in case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar; (1971) 2 SCC 330, as is apparent from the following paragraph:- “29. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a Government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same. 30. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and the respondents by an executive order dated June 12, 1968 have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on August 5, 1966. There is only a bald averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, was not prepared to take up the position that the right to receive pension cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension. We understood the learned counsel to urge that if the State had passed an order granting pension and later on resiles from that order, the latter order may be considered to affect the petitioner's right regarding property so as to attract Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. 31. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (7 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] reference to the material provisions in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognize the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein. 32. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India A.I.R. 1962 Pun 503. It was held that such a right constitutes "property" and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant Singh I.L.R. 1965 Pun 1 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is "property" within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as "property" cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority. 33. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab I.L.R. 1967 P & H 278. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (8 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. 34. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde and Anr. MANU/SC/0030/1968 : [1968]3SCR489 had to consider the question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property". 35. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1)of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (9 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law”. 13. In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651, Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (FortyFourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it is still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension is treated as right to property. 10. A person cannot be deprived of this pension and retiral benefits without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution. Till date no order has been passed to withhold the retiral benefits and nothing is on record to justify stand of the respondents. 11. A Preliminary Enquiry (P.E.) was registered in 2011, which was converted into an FIR in 2016, and FIRs number(s) 321/2017 and 322/2017, were registered in 2017. While filing an application No. 380/2013, to recall the order dated 25.07.2012, it was mentioned by the respondents that 14 FIRs were pending against the petitioner, besides departmental inquiry pursuant to charge sheet under Rule 16 and 17 of CCA Rules. Whether registration of FIR is considered as a pending criminal case or not is a question to be addressed. 12. In case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991, 4 SCC 109, it has been clearly held that pendency of criminal [2026:RJ-JP:11994] (10 of 10) [CW-6797/2020] proceedings can only be treated as an impediment for purpose of promotion in case, a charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed and pendency with regard to disciplinary proceedings can only be treated as such in case charge sheet has been served upon delinquent concerned. As per DOP dated 04.06.2008, it was mentioned that a criminal proceeding treated as pending, when a report of police (challan) has been filed and cognizance has been taken. 13. The role and involvement of the present petitioner is still under investigation for last more than nine years and has not been concluded. Therefore, the grounds to withhold the service benefits including benefit to grant scale is somewhat denial of rights to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has a case to succeed in the Court. 14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to make payments of post-retirement benefits of pension, gratuity, benefit of commutation and also of leave encashment, if any not paid till date. The respondents are also directed to consider the case of present petitioner for grant of selection scale, if petitioner is entitled after completion of 10, 20 and 30 years and also payment of NPA if he is entitled along with benefit of pay fixation. The necessary exercise has to be completed within a period of 90 days, from date of receipt of copy of order. 15. The writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /50