Judgment

VERMA, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Jarnail Singh, retired from the post of Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 31st March, 1986. By the Order dated 26-5-1988, the President of India directed that the full monthly pension and the entire amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, otherwise admissible to the appellant, be withheld on a permanent basis. This direction was given on account of serious irregularities found to have been committed by the appellant in an inquiry held for the purpose and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The appellant challenged this Order before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has rejected the appellants contention and dismissed the application made for quashing this Order. Hence this appeal against the Tribunals Order by special leave.

3. Notice on the petitioners special leave petition was confined only to the question. whether, by way of punishment, the payment of gratuity also could be withheld, for recovery of loss sustained by the Government. This appeal is, therefore, confined to this question only.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the expression pension in R. 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 did not include gratuity to enable withholding of payment of gratuity in addition to withholding the pension amount. In support of this argument, the amendment. made in these Rules in 1991 to expressly include gratuity also in R. 9, in addition to pension, is relied on. It is submitted that. prior to the 1991 Amendment, Rule 9 could not be construed to confer that power in respect of gratuity also in addition to pension. In reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the amendment made in 1991 is merely clarificatory which is evident from the fact that the word pension as defined in R. 3(1)(o) of these Rules includes gratuity. Reference is also made to Art. 366(17) of the Constitution of India to indicate that conceptually pension includes gratuity. In our opinion, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.

5. Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 contains the definitions. Clause (o) in sub-rule (1) of R. 3 is as under :-

" pension includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity;"

From this definition of the word pension, is clear that ordinarily the word pension wherever used in these Rules includes gratuity except when the term Pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity.

6. Rule 9, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, is as under :-

"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement :

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :

xxx xxx xxx"

Bearing in mind the definition of the term pension in R. 3(1)(o), the term pension used in R. 9(1) must be construed to include gratuity since the term pension, in the context, is not used in contradistinction to gratuity. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred to the amendment made in R. 9(1) by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Third Amendment Rules, 1991, whereby the term pension has been substituted by the expression pension or gratuity, or both and consequential amendments made in that sub-rule. The question is : whether this amendment made in 1991 indicates, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that pension alone could be withheld under R. 9(1) and not also the gratuity prio