Professional Documents
Culture Documents
recent amendments by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensioners, Govt. of India,
to the All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules). Through a notification dated 6.7.2023, these amendments have, inter alia, sought to impose a
complete ban on the right of retired civil servants to comment on public matters, by threatening
them with the withdrawal of their pensions. This would be violative of Article 51A of the Constitution
which enjoins upon all citizens to “cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired the national
struggle for freedom.” The right to criticise the government in power is part of these ideals and
cannot be termed as “misconduct” .
The original Rules of 1958 (as amended from time to time) did contain a provision in Rule 3 that
“future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuation”
and that the pension could be withheld or withdrawn, in part or in full, if the pensioner is convicted
of a serious crime or is held to be guilty of grave misconduct. However, such action could only be
taken by the union government on a reference from the state government (the cadre to which the
officer belonged). But now, Rule 3 has been amended to provide that such punitive action can be
taken by the union government “either on a reference from the state government concerned or
otherwise.” This, we feel, violates the principles of federalism and confers draconian powers of
oversight and overrule on the union government which is not in conformity with the duality of
control envisaged in the All India Services structure. It will further expose officers in opposition ruled
states to intimidation by the party in power at the centre.
We note with apprehension that nowhere in the Rules has the term “good conduct” or “grave
misconduct” been defined, other than in sub-rule 8 of Rule 3 which merely “includes” disclosure of
any information covered by the Official Secrets Act as a grave misconduct. Other than this, however,
the Rules are completely silent on this issue, and everything is left to the decision or interpretation of
the central government. Considering the severe penalties prescribed for misconduct, it is legally
incumbent on the union government to have provided an exhaustive definition of the term. By
leaving this deliberately vague, ambiguous and amorphous, the union government has armed itself
with unlimited powers to harass and persecute any pensioner whose action is not to its liking,
whether it be an article, an interview, participation in a protest march or seminar, or any form of
criticism. In effect, this will totally muzzle and silence anyone who draws a pension from the state,
which appears to be the intention behind these amendments.
The withdrawal/withholding of pension for any criminal conviction is equally pernicious and
untenable in law as it amounts to double jeopardy, punishing a person twice for the same offence.
The pension is something (s)he has already earned by dint of long service. If (s)he commits a crime,
(s)he will suffer the consequences of that by the operation of that criminal law: (s)he cannot be
penalised a second time for the same offence by withdrawing her/his pension. Furthermore, the law
punishes the perpetrator of a crime, not her/his next of kin; by withdrawing/withholding her/his
pension the government would be inflicting unjustified tribulations and misery on her/his family too.
Finally, both the original and the amended provision of Rule 3 (except the newly introduced sub-rule
6 about divulging secret and security related information) violate multiple rulings of the Supreme
Court and various High Courts which have, over the last 65 years, constantly held that pension is an
employee’s right and a kind of deferred payment for service already rendered. It is not largesse or
charity bestowed by the government and does not depend upon the discretion of the government
(State of Punjab and Another vs Iqbal Singh).
In DS Nakara vs Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court held that a law cannot discriminate
between the same class of people, and that all statutes or laws must have some rational nexus with
the object of the law. Rule 3, both the original and the amended versions, do not conform to these
legal requirements. Pensioners are no longer government servants: they are free citizens of the
country like any other citizen, with the same freedom of expression. By curbing this right under the
specious guise of “good conduct” the government is discriminating against them and, therefore, also
violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, what is the “object” of this rule, if not to silence
any form of criticism of the government? This cannot be held to be rational, reasonable or based on
some valid principle, as is required in another judgment (Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The Airport
Authority of India and Others).
Rule 3 has become obsolete: it is a legal anachronism which also militates against the right to
freedom of speech and dissent. It makes pensioners bonded labourers for life, a separate-and
inferior-class of citizens who do not enjoy the freedom of expression. It further seeks to impose the
Conduct Rules (which apply only to those in service of the government) on pensioners through the
back door, which is abhorrent in law, as the latter are no longer in service. They are free citizens and
there exists no employer-employee relationship between them and the government.
Rules governing conditions of service need to be dynamic and in sync with the changes in
interpretation of laws, the evolution of jurisprudence on rights and freedoms, the development of
the concepts of democracy and an open society. Rule 3 fails to do so, is stuck in a time warp and
needs to go.
The Constitutional Conduct Group urges the governments in the states and the union government to
review this rule with a view to abolishing it, and not to further build upon it. In the interim we
further request the union government to hold in abeyance these amendments in the interests of
federalism, fair play, equality of citizens, freedom of expression and a vibrant democracy.
SATYAMEVA JAYATE
Chandrashekar
5. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Coal, GoI
Balakrishnan
Engineering
Former Additional Director General, Central
6. Sushant Baliga Services
PWD, GoI
(Retd.)
22. Vibha Puri Das IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GoI
24. Pradeep K. Deb IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Deptt. Of Sports, GoI
M.G.
26. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Govt. of Haryana
Devasahayam
Vivek
33. IAS (Retd.) Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Harinarain
Vinod C.
36. IFS (Retd.) Former Additional Secretary, MEA, GoI
Khanna
Sonalini IFS
45. GoI
Mirchandani (Resigned)
46. Sunil Mitra IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GoI
Avinash Former Director General of Police, Govt. of
47. IPS (Retd.)
Mohananey Sikkim
Gautam
52. IFS (Retd.) Former Ambassador to Myanmar
Mukhopadhaya
Ramesh
54. IAS (Retd.) Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Narayanaswami
56. P. Joy Oommen IAS (Retd.) Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh
Amitabha
57. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Inter-State Council, GoI
Pande
Maxwell
58. IPS (Retd.) Former Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Pereira
59. Alok Perti IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Ministry of Coal, GoI
R.
61. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, GoI
Poornalingam
Vijaya Latha
71. IFS (Retd.) Former Deputy National Security Adviser, GoI
Reddy
IAS
73. Aruna Roy
(Resigned)
G.V.
Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of
76. Venugopala IAS (Retd.)
Odisha
Sarma
77. N.C. Saxena IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Planning Commission, GoI
Abhijit
80. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI
Sengupta
Ashok Kumar
83. IFS (Retd.) Former Ambassador to Finland and Estonia
Sharma
Navrekha
84. IFS (Retd.) Former Ambassador to Indonesia
Sharma