Madurai: Madras high court has upheld the order of a single bench which struck down a GO issued in 2025 that cancelled enhanced pension and family pension granted to retired state govt doctors/medical officers and their families.
A division bench of Justice C V Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the GO had been issued only under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. There is no indication that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied while passing the GO. They had retired in October 2009. As on date, the youngest of them would be 76 years of age, taking the age of superannuation as 60 years. More than 50 of them have died.
But, there should be a corresponding amendment to the Rules providing for deprivation of pension even after the pension had been sanctioned. Though it could be stated that govt is waiving recovery, still reduction of pension is deprivation and there can never be such deprivation except under the authority of law. They had discharged their noble duty while in service. There is no complaint about their lack of dedication during their period of service. They are thus a diminishing class.
The family pension would only be 50% of the pension payable to a retired public servant. Though it is claimed to have been passed under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, there are no corresponding amendments to the Rules. There is no claim that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied by govt.
The financial commitment, therefore, decreases on death, the judges observed. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Madurai | Silver Rate in Madurai | Bank Holidays in Madurai | Public Holidays in Madurai | Madurai AQI | Weather in Madurai | Petrol Price in Madurai | Diesel Price in Madurai | CNG Price in Madurai | LPG Price in Madurai Stay updated with the latest Madurai news. The judges observed, “There cannot be a reduction of pension to just satiate the pleasure of executive officers deciding these issues. The plight of the retired pensioners should be seen. It is not a question of mere reduction of pension, but the hurt caused owing to degradation of the services rendered by them. Their services rendered to hundreds and thousands of patients should be recognised and should not be just washed away by citing other financial commitments by the government. ” The judges held that this deprivation is a very unkind cut and they are not inclined to accept the argument that it is reasonable. Deprivation of sanctioned pension could be resorted to only in the manner known to law. When the law does not authorise such deprivation, govt can never take away a part of the pension under the umbrella of a GO, which has no statutory value. They had no hesitation in striking down the GO and confirming the order of the single bench, the judges observed and dismissed the appeals preferred by the state. Download the TOI App.