A two-judge Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a single judge’s order quashing a Government Order (G.O.) issued in 2025, which cancelled the enhanced pension and family pension granted to retired State government doctors/medical officers and their families.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel said the G.O. had been issued only under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 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 the government is waiving recovery, still reduction of pension is deprivation, and there can never be such deprivation except under the authority of law. There is no indication that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied while passing the G.O.,” the court said.

The judges said the doctors had discharged their noble duty while in service. There was no complaint about lack of dedication during their period of service. They had retired in October, 2009. As on date, the youngest of them would be 76 years of age (taking 60 as the age of superannuation).

“They are thus a diminishing class. More than 50 of them had died. The family pension would only be 50% of the pension payable to a retired public servant. The financial commitment therefore decreases on death,” they said.

The judges held there cannot be a reduction of pension just to satiate the pleasure of Executive Officers deciding these issues. The plight of 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 commitment by the government,” the judges said. They added, the government as a welfare State has a duty to recognise the loyal services rendered by a public servant. Deprivation of sanctioned pension could be resorted to only in the manner known to law.

“When the law does not authorise such deprivation, the government can never take away a part of the pension under the umbrella of a G.O, which has no statutory value. Though it is claimed to have been passed under Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules there are no corresponding amendments to the Rules. There is no claim that Article 162 of the Constitution had been applied by the government,” the court said and dismissed the appeals filed by the State.