Source: Chhattisgarh High Court  

Why in News? 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that pension is a constitutional right and property under Article 300-A, and cannot be withheld or reduced without statutory authority and due process of law. 

• The Chhattisgarh High Court held this in the matter of Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajkumar Gonekar (dead) through LRs v. State of Chhattisgarh,2025 Case? 

• Rajkumar Gonekar was appointed as Assistant Director in 1990 and later promoted to Deputy Director in 2000. 
• He was subsequently demoted to the post of Assistant Director due to certain corrections in the gradation list. 
• Following court orders, he was reinstated as Deputy Director and continued serving in that capacity until his retirement on 31st January 2018, upon reaching the age of superannuation. 
• During his service, allegations of misappropriation were made against him, to which he submitted replies denying any wrongdoing and asserting that he had acted in accordance with the law. 
• In 2016-17, notices were issued to him regarding alleged misappropriation of public funds. 
• After his retirement, on 13th December 2018, a show cause notice was issued to him requiring a response, which he provided on 25th January 2019, again denying all allegations. 
• On 15th February 2021, an order was passed granting permission to recover Rs. 9.23 lakhs from Gonekar's pension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 
• Gonekar filed a writ petition challenging this recovery order, arguing it was passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following due process of law. 
• During the pendency of the petition, Rajkumar Gonekar passed away on 20th June 2024, after which his legal heirs were impleaded in the case. 
• The State authorities contended that proper procedure was followed, as notices regarding the alleged misappropriation were issued before Gonekar's retirement, and action was taken only after receiving his response. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that pension and gratuity are not bounties but hard-earned benefits accruing to employees through long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service, constituting a "property" right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The Court noted that a person cannot be deprived of a pension without due process of law, as mandated by the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 300-A. 
• Upon scrutiny of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the Court determined that recovery from pension for pecuniary loss caused to the Government is permissible only when the employee is found guilty in a departmental or judicial proceeding. 
• The Court found that in the present case, apart from a show cause notice and the petitioner's reply, no evidence existed to establish that the petitioner was found guilty of any offence in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding. 
• The Court observed that the principles of natural justice require that even in administrative decisions affecting individual rights, a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be afforded to the affected party. 
• The Court held that the State's attempt to withhold part of pension or gratuity without statutory provision and under the pretext of administrative instruction was unconstitutional and could not be countenanced. 
• The Court concluded that the recovery order exercising power under Rule 9 was unsustainable in law due to the absence of a conclusive finding of guilt through proper proceedings. 

What is Article 300-A of the COI? 

• Article 300-A stipulates that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law," establishing a constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property. 
• Prior to 1978, the right to property was enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the COI, which provided citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. 
• The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the category of fundamental rights by deleting Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, and repositioned it as a constitutional right under Article 300-A. 
• The Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), held that despite not being classified as a fundamental right, any law depriving an individual of property must still adhere to the principles of being just, fair, and reasonable as mandated by Articles 14, 19, and 21. 
• In B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India (2020), the Court emphasized the similarity between the phrasing of Article 300-A and Articles 21 and 265, affirming that the guarantee enshrined in Article 300-A cannot be diluted. 
• The constitutional protection afforded by Article 300-A requires the State to follow due process and proper legal authority when depriving a person of their private property. 
• Despite the downgrading from fundamental right status, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to property constitutes both a constitutional right and a human right deserving robust protection.