Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
S.Sivaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director (Personnel), Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai 06 – Respondent
WMP.Nos.13492 & 13493/2026 | W.P.(MD) No. [implied from context]
For Petitioner(s): P.Rajendran, P.Mohanraj, P.Manojkumar, J.Lakshminarayanan
For Respondent(s): M/s.Mythreye Chandran, Spl.GP
Pension cannot be withheld without guilt finding in proceedings; time-bar applies to old allegations.
Headnote:Under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Government may withhold pension if pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings. Petitioner, a retired teacher appointed in 1992, received pension post-retirement on 31.05.2025 with clean chit certificate; four months later, pension stopped due to alleged bogus SSLC marksheet without guilt finding or notice. Court found no proceedings initiated during service, allegation from 1992 exceeds four-year limit under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). Issue: Whether pension can be withheld pre-guilty finding for decades-old allegation. Ratio: Rule 9(1)(a) requires guilt determination in proceedings; Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) bars proceedings for events over four years prior if not initiated in service; impugned order lacks jurisdiction without notice or finding (paras 6-9). Writ allowed; impugned order set aside, pension restoration directed forthwith.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges post-retirement pension stoppage. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. rule 9(1)(a) violated without notice or guilt. (Para 4) |
| 3. clean chit at retirement; post-facto order invalid. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. no guilt finding; 1992 event time-barred. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. order quashed; pension restored, future action rule-bound. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
(1) Challenging the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 18.08.2025, stopping payment of pension, the petitioner is before this Court, with a further prayer to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to pay the pension and other retirement benefits with interest, that have been withheld on account of the impugned order.
(2) Brief facts preceding the filing of the writ petition is herein below set out. (3) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1992 and promoted as Primary School Headmaster on 05.02.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2025 as the Headmaster of the Aided Elementary School, Adiyanur, Vandavasi Block, Tiruvannamalai District. As his retirement fell during the academic year, he was re-employed till the end of the academic year, till 31.05.2025, and was permitted to retire from service unconditionally. The petitioner would submit that at the time of his retirement, he was not facing any disciplinary proceedings or criminal cases. The Block Development Officer, Vandavasi, the 4th respondent herein, had issued a Certificate on 31.05.2025, stating that there was no due pending from the petitioner to the Government and that, he was not facing any disciplinary action. On the strength of this Certificate, the Pay and Accounts Office / Treasury Officer/Sub Treasury Officer, Vandavasi, had sanctioned pension under the Pension Payment Order dated 26.06.2025, in and by which, a payment of pension was authorised. Till September 2025, the petitioner had received the pension without default. However, the 4th respondent, sent a communication to the 3rd respondent on 18.09.2025, instructing him to stop payment of pension to the petitioner until further orders, as the 1st respondent had issued this direction in his proceedings dated 12.08.2025, wherein he had directed the 4th respondent to initiate criminal and departmental proceedings against the petitioner, for having secured employment on the basis of a bogus SSLC Mark Sheet. The petitioner, who had been appointed as early as in the year 1992, and who had retired on 31.05.2025, was charged with manipulating his appointment. Therefore, the petitioner had no other option, except to challenge the order dated 18.09.2025.
(4) The petitioner would submit that as per Rule 9[1][a] of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 , the action of the respondents was totally without jurisdiction and without even holding the petitioner guilty of any misconduct, the impugned order had been passed. The petitioner would further submit that without putting the petitioner on notice, the impugned order has been passed and hence, sought for interference of the same.
(5) Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
(6) A mere perusal of the records filed in the typed set of papers in the writ petition would clearly indicate that the petitioner had superannuated on 31.05.2025 and at the time of his superannuation, he had been given a clean chit by all the authorities and the pension has been disbursed to him. However, after 33 years of blemishless service and four months after his retirement, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order clearly shows that it is one that is passed invoking the authority under Section 9[1] of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 . (7) The aforesaid Rule, namely, Rule 9[1][a] reads thus:- ‘’ 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1) (a) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period if, in any dep
