Examination of Pension Rules and Constitutional Validity
I think the matter should be examined under the provisions of the TN Govt. Pension Rules, read with the Constitutional validity. The link is here:
http://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/f...Tn.pension.pdf.
Whereas the right to pension, as per the SC judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009), may be relevant. The full text could not be attached due to its volume.
"13. In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651, this Court recognized that even after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution via the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June 1979, the right to property was no longer a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. The right to receive a pension was treated as a right to property. Otherwise, the challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances, and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive a pension is recognized as a right in 'property'.
14. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads as under:
"300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. 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 the attempt of the appellant to take away a part of the 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 do not have statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as 'law' within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which does not have the force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of the 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.
16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each.
This judgment provides some guidance on how a pension cannot be withheld (or recovered) except as per law, not by the administrative orders issued by the state/central government, as the pensionary benefits are considered as 'right to property' guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 300A. It may be possible if the employer files a suit to recover the residual sum and if the appropriate court passes a judgment in favor of the recovery, which is unlikely.
I may be wrong or right, just for argument's sake, here the punishment is 'to recover from the employee's emoluments' (and definitely not from the 'Family Pension' to the kith and kin of the deceased). The question raised here is whether the recovery left over could be continued from the Family Pension of the family/nominee of the now-deceased employee or not.
This question, I like to draw parallel to another type of punishment. Let us see, for example, an employee was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for his conviction due to his involvement in a crime during his service. Unfortunately, the convicted employee dies in prison before completing the full term of imprisonment. Now, could the wife or legal heir be asked to undergo the balance of the jail term? The query is more or less like the same as what I described.
And Mr. NKS is correct in citing Ms. JJ's abatement due to her death, escaping the certain to be 4-year jail term. I was, in fact, reminded of the very same JJ's case when I started reading Ms. Hema's first post.
Also consider, sometimes capital punishments like death and life terms two times or more are ruled for heinous crimes like multiple murders and so on (more in the USA). Does this mean the convicted should be hanged twice, is there any first death and second death? Hema's reference is similar to this if not the same. The debate may be continued.