The withdrawal of pension benefits without notice violates the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard in administrative actions that have civil consequences.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging order dt.19.04.2025 so issued by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexures-9 & 12 respectively. Vide the said order, benefit extended in favour of the Petitioners way back in the year 2016 vide orders dt.04.02.2016 & 22.10.2016 in both the cases was withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that basing on the order passed on 04.02.2016 and 22.10.2016, both the Petitioners were included under the Government Pension Scheme. It is also contended that during subsistence of the said orders, both the Petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Not only that, after such retirement from service, Petitioners were extended with the benefit of pension. But all on a sudden, without following the principle of natural justice and without issuing any show-cause, the impugned order was passed on dt.19.04.2025 wherein the orders passed on 04.02.2016 and 22.10.2016 in favour of both the Petitioners were withdrawn.

4.1. It is contended that since principle of natural justice was never followed and the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the same, order passed on 19.04.2025 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his aforesaid submission relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC-597 , State of Orissa vs. Binapani Das , AIR 1967 SC-1269 , State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, Dushyant Mainali Vs.Diwan Singh Bora & Another, SLP (C ) No.15191 of 2022 and Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of M.P & Others, Civil Appeal NO(s) 4806 of 2011 (2025 INSC 126).

4.3. In Menaka Gandhi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs-57, 58 and 61 has held as under:-

“57. The question immediately arises : does the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967 for impounding a passport meet the, test of this requirement ? Is it ’right or fair or just’ ? The argument of the petitioner was that it is not, because it provides for impounding of a passport without affording reasonable opportunity to the holder of the passport to be heard in defence. To impound the passport of a person, said the petitioner, is a serious matter, since it prevents him from exercising his constitutional right to go abroad and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness be visited without observing the principle of audi alteram partem. Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandsworth Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ 57 Board of Works(2). "A long course of decision---, beginning with Dr. Bentley’s case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although t