Pension can be withheld only when a person is convicted or when he is punished for grave misconduct: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

In Prabhakar Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court delivered a 10-page long judgement dated June 23, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" 12. It is needless to say that the pension is deferred portion of compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a hard earned benefit accruing to an employee in the nature of property. It is not a bounty to be disbursed contrary to rules, but very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate a retired government employee to live with dignity in winter of his life. Such a right cannot be curtailed by way of an executive fiat. Power to curtail pension or any portion thereof must be based on valid ground in accordance with law. Section 43 clearly postulates that pension can be withheld only when a person is convicted or when he is punished for grave misconduct. Till date, the petitioner was not convicted in any criminal case nor punished with grave misconduct. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the remaining amount of his retiral benefits, which was withheld unauthorizedly by the respondents. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition is allowed. 14. The respondent authority is directed to clear the retiral dues to the petitioner, which has been withheld, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order." The judgement refers to Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.  

The writ petitioner was a retired government employee, who filed the writ petition for issuance of an appropriate Writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari to set aside the Memo issued by the State Tax Additional Commissioner-Cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax Government of Bihar respondent no. 3 i.e. State Tax Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Government of Bihar whereby he has wrote letter to Principal Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, the respondent no. 4 stating therein that only 90% provisional Pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner and withheld the sanction of gratuity amount to the petitioner till final conclusion has not came in Judicial Proceeding in the light of the letter  issued by finance department. The petitioner had sought a direction to the respondents to immediate Pay the 100% Pension amount of gratuity and amount of unutilized leave salary to the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum. 

The petitioner had retired from service on March 31, March, 2022. After his retirement on superannuation, he was entitled to get his retiral benefits, such as pension, gratuity, amount of group insurance and amount of unutilized leave salary. 

Justice Chaudhuri observed: "7. It is not in dispute that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty and minor punishment of withholding two increments was imposed. After completion of departmental enquiry, he again joined his service and worked without any allegation till the date of his superannuation. Thus, after the allegation of embezzlement of fund and completion of departmental enquiry, he performed his duties to the satisfaction of his authorities. 8. Now, the question that requires to be adjudicated is as to whether a portion of retiral benefit can be withheld by
the respondents on the ground of pendency of criminal cases for more than 22 years." 

A plain reading of the relevant provision revealed that the provincial government reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the petitioner is convicted of serious crime or be held guilty of grave misconduct. The judgement recorded: "11. Till date, the petitioner was not convicted in any criminal case, concerning embezzlement of fund. He was also not held guilty of grave misconduct. In the departmental proceeding, only minor penalty of withholding two increments was imposed. It is already recorded that subsequently the petitioner performed his duties till the date of his superannuation satisfactorily."