The state cannot use the pendency of an appeal to justify non-compliance with valid judicial orders. Financial recovery against retirees requires strict adherence to principles of natural justice and statutory limitation periods, and deliberate procedural delay by public authorities must be viewed with severity.

Headnote:(A) Pension Rules - Proviso to Rule 43(b) - Recovery of pension - Limitation for disciplinary action after retirement - Principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 9, 11, 12)

(B) Procedural Lapses - Failure to serve notice - Effect of non-compliance with orders of trial court during pendency of appeal - Duty of state to comply with interim orders. (Paras 4, 6, 21)

Facts of the case:
A retired employee challenged a reduction in pension before the lower court, which set aside the disciplinary penalty. The state-party challenged this in appeal, but failed to serve the notice upon the respondent for an extended duration and neglected to comply with the initial court order, despite the absence of a stay. The state contended that inter-regional administrative transfers caused delays, but failed to justify the breach of the limitation period.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the state’s failure to serve the respondent and its refusal to implement the lower court’s directive frustrated the rights of the pensioner. It noted that the state could not use procedural delays as a shield to avoid compliance. The court held that the disciplinary action stood vitiated due to violations of natural justice and statutory limitation constraints.

Issues: The central issues were the applicability of the statutory limitation period on post-retirement disciplinary proceedings and whether the state’s non-compliance with an active judicial order constituted a failure of administrative duty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that in the absence of an interim stay, judicial orders must be implemented without delay. Furthermore, disciplinary penalties resulting in financial loss against retirees must strictly conform to statutory time limitations and the principles of natural justice. Procedural lethargy by the state is not a ground for appellate intervention when the initial order is legally sound.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. failure to serve parties and comply with interim judicial orders constitutes procedural negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. pension disciplinary actions are subject to strict limitation periods under pension rules 43(b). (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. institutional non-compliance with court orders empowers courts to initiate contempt proceedings against administrative heads. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This LPA challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.02.2024 allowing the 1st respondent’s W.P (S) No. 5389 of 2021 and quashing the portion of the order dated 10.12.2020 concerning deduction of 5% pension payable to the petitioner for a period of one year. The consequential review order dated 09.06.2021 was also quashed and set aside.

3. There is delay of 100 days in instituting this appeal. Therefore, notice was issued upon the 1st respondent. Despite several opportunities, the appellant State claimed that they have not been able to serve the 1st respondent.

4. Records disclose that this appeal was filed on 26.06.2024. As usual, the same was filed with defects. Again, as usual, much time was spent in seeking adjournments to clear the defects and ultimately, after considerable delay, defects were cleared. All this while, though there was no interim reliefgranted by the Court, learned Single Judge’s order was not complied with.

5. On 28.01.2026, notice was issued to the 1st respondent, returnable on 24.02.2026 with directions to take immediate steps for service. Still, the requisites for service of notice were filed only on 11.03.2026 i.e. beyond the returnable date. On 23.03.2026, because it was not clear whether the 1st respondent was served or not, the matter was adjourned to 01st of April 2026. On 01st of April 2026, again the matter was adjourned to 06th of April, 2026.

6. On 06.04.2026, upon noticing that the 1st respondent was still not served, we were constrained to pass the following order:

“1. Despite opportunities, the 1st respondent is not served.

2. The 1st respondent is a pensioner of the appellants and, therefore, it should not be difficult for the appellants to serve the 1st respondent.

3. On the ground of pendency of this appeal, the appellants are not complying with the order of the learned Single Judge. This is not correct. Since there is a delay in service upon the 1st respondent, the least that we expect is compliance to the learned Single Judge’s order without prejudice to the contentions raised in this appeal.

4. The learned S.C. (L&C)-I to report on the status of compliance. If by chance, there is no compliance, learned counsel should inform us the name of the Secretary of the concerned Department responsible for compliance.

5. List the matter on 27th of April 2026, for completion of service and reporting compliance.

6. At this stage, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar states that the appellants will deposit the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge in this Court on or before the next date.

7. The statement is accepted.

8. The amount must be deposited on or before the next date consistent with the statement now made.

9. At the same time, all efforts must be made to serve the 1st respondent expeditiously.”

7. Today, when the matter has come up again, it is reported that the 1st respondent has not been served.

8. In this case, though the routine reasons, which are not very convincing, have been given to seek condonation of the 100-day delay, considering that the delay is not very unreasonable, we would have condoned the same. However, even after condoning the delay, we find that the appellant's action in this case is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in its order dated 17.03.2026, disposing of LPA No. 358 of 2025. Thus, there would be no point in adjourning the matter with a view to granting more dates only to serve the 1st respondent, thereafter, to condone the delay and final

Click Here to Read the rest of this document