Pension withholding under valid rule-making power upheld where the rule itself provides authority of law.

Pension is a valuable right and, at the relevant time, property protected by constitutional guarantees, but a rule made under Article 309 can still validly authorise withholding or withdrawal of pension where its conditions are met. The existence of authority of law is sufficient for such action, and the character of pension as property does not by itself render the rule ultra vires. Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 was therefore upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power, and the High Court's declaration of invalidity was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, was ultra vires on the ground that it authorised withholding of pension or a part thereof in certain cases.

Analysis: Pension is a valuable right and, at the relevant time, property protected by the constitutional guarantee then contained in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1). However, the challenge was not to an executive deprivation of pension, but to the validity of a rule made under constitutional rule-making power that expressly authorised withholding or withdrawal of pension where the stipulated conditions were satisfied. The existence of authority of law is sufficient to permit such withholding. The fact that pension was treated as property did not render the rule invalid, because the rule itself constituted the legal basis for withholding pension in accordance with its terms.

Conclusion: Rule 10(1) was not ultra vires and the declaration of invalidity made by the High Court was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the rule governing withholding of pension was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule framed under Article 309 that authorises withholding or withdrawal of pension in specified circumstances is valid if it constitutes authority of law for such action; the constitutional character of pension as property does not by itself make the rule ultra vires.

---