Statutory pension rights and unlawful service cessation: invalid absence-based termination could not defeat pension entitlement.

Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code could not validly be invoked where continuous absence from duty was broken by court restraint and an operative decree, so the cessation of service order was unsustainable and had to be quashed. Refusal of pension under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules also failed because the disqualification depended on a valid dismissal or removal for misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency, and no such valid foundation existed. Pension was treated as a statutory entitlement, not executive grace, and as property protected by the Constitution, making a writ petition under Article 32 maintainable against unlawful withholding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order declaring the petitioner to have ceased to be in Government employment under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code was valid. (ii) Whether the order refusing pension under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules was valid. (iii) Whether the right to receive pension is property protected by Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution and whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 32.

Issue (i): Whether the order declaring the petitioner to have ceased to be in Government employment under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code was valid.

Analysis: Rule 76 applied only where a Government servant had been continuously absent from duty for more than five years. The continuity of absence was broken during periods when the petitioner was restrained by court orders from joining duty in the post held by him, and again when a decree in his favour remained operative. On the material before the Court, the essential statutory condition for invoking Rule 76 was not satisfied. The order was also made without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause, and therefore could not stand as a lawful termination of service.

Conclusion: The order under Rule 76 was invalid and had to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order refusing pension under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules was valid.

Analysis: Rule 46 denied pension only where dismissal or removal for misconduct, insolvency, or inefficiency had been validly made. Since the order under Rule 76 was itself unsustainable, the foundation for treating the petitioner as disqualified from pension disappeared. Pension under the Rules was not a matter of executive grace but a legal entitlement governed by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The order refusing pension under Rule 46 was invalid and had to be quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether the right to receive pension is property protected by Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution and whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 32.

Analysis: The right to pension flows from the rules governing service and retirement benefits and is not dependent on a fresh executive grant. Such a right is a valuable legal right and constitutes property. Its withholding by executive action affects constitutional rights to property, making a petition under Article 32 maintainable.

Conclusion: The right to receive pension is property, and the writ petition was maintainable under Article 32.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted against the later orders, the petitioner's pension claim had to be considered according to law, and the challenge succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A service cessation order based on continuous absence cannot stand unless the statutory precondition is strictly satisfied, and pension rights under the governing rules constitute property that cannot be defeated by an invalid executive order.

---