Court directs RSRTC to reinstate pension and provide hearing before reconsidering penalty under Pension Regulations
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) that permanently withheld the pension of Rohitash Meena, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer. The Court held that the RSRTC violated the mandatory provisions of Regulation 4 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Regulations, 1989, and the principles of natural justice by passing the impugned order without serving any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Rohitash Meena, who retired on March 31, 2023, was convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur, on July 20, 2023, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the conviction, RSRTC withheld his pension and gratuity without prior notice. The petitioner challenged this action through a writ petition, contending that his pension was a statutory right earned after years of service and could not be forfeited arbitrarily without adherence to due process.
The Court observed that although Regulation 4 confers discretionary power on the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension in cases of conviction or grave misconduct, it explicitly requires that no order be passed without issuing a show-cause notice and allowing the pensioner a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The judgment emphasized that the exercise of discretion must be objective, reasoned, and supported by good and sufficient reasons, reflecting an application of mind rather than a mechanical decision.
Referring to precedents including the Division Bench decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Ram Yadav (1995) and a recent judgment in Ramjilal Jangid v. RSRTC (2026), the Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty but a valuable statutory right. The failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constituted a violation of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.
Rejecting the RSRTC's preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the order impugned suffered from jurisdictional error and procedural impropriety.
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated September 22, 2023, restored the payment of pension to the petitioner with arrears, and remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration. The authority was directed to serve a proper show-cause notice, allow the petitioner to make submissions including mitigating circumstances, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with Regulation 4 within three months.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's insistence on adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice even in cases involving pension forfeiture following criminal conviction, reaffirming the protection of pensioners' rights under statutory regulations.
Bottom Line:
Pension is not a bounty but a valuable statutory right earned by an employee after rendering long years of service. Principles of natural justice must be followed before passing any adverse order resulting in the deprivation or permanent withholding of pension.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Regulations, 1989 (Regulation 4), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)), Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Rule 16), Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 226)
