JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The Petitioner, an ex-Subedar of the Assam Rifles, filed this writ petition for quashing the order of stoppage/withdrawal of his pension and also for a direction to the Respondents to allow him to draw his pension as usual from the State Bank of India at Chandigarh and treat the Petitioner in service till his retirement and for considering the order of dismissal from service being ineffective. 2. Heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G for the Respondents. 3. Background facts in a nutshell needed to be discussed, for disposal of the instant writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner on 16.01.1960 was first appointed as Rifleman (GD) under the Assam Rifles and subsequent thereto he was promoted to the post of Subedar and had been posted at Teliamura, Tripura under the 27 Bn. Assam Rifles (for short the Battalion). While the Petitioner was working as Subedar at Teliamura, one Smti. Renuka Devi, a female attendant of the said Battalion reportedly lodged a complaint, inter alia, that while the Petitioner was functioning as Jamadar Adjutant in the said Battalion, outraged modesty of the said Renuka Devi in July, 1987. On the basis of the said complaint there was an inquiry but the Petitioner was not informed of the said inquiry. Even the report of the Court of inquiry and statement of witnesses recorded were not communicated to him. On coming to know the aforesaid allegation, the wife of the Petitioner filed an application before the Commandant of the said Battalion claiming redressal against the said false and malicious allegations against her husband, by the said Smti. Renuka Devi. The Commandant of the said Battallion made an inquiry and submitted his report to the DIG, HQS. Range of Assam Rifles on 21st October, 1989. The said Commandant on inquiry found no substance on those allegations and he clearly opined that no cognizance could be taken of any offence allegedly committed by the Petitioner in absence of proof and that too while the alleged offence purported to have been committed in the month of October, 1987. Thereafter, the Petitioner on 14.05.1990 received tentative charge from the OFFG Commandant of the said Battalion along with notice of hearing of the charge. Thereafter, the Petitioner on 14.05.1990 received tentative charge from the OFFG Commandant of the said Battalion along with notice of hearing of the charge. But, neither what had exactly happened to the inquiry was communicated nor result of the inquiry was furnished to the Petitioner. Ultimately the Director General of the said Battalion vide memorandum dated 09.09.1991 initiated disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner levelling charges inter alia under Rule-14 of the CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965, as under: 1. Subedar Chaman Singh at field between 26/27 June, 1988, presented a sari to Smti Renuka Devi, an employee of 27th Assam Rifles and forcibly tried to embrace her and outraged her modesty with intend to commit rape. 2. Subedar Chaman Singh at field between August' 87 to June' 88, when he was performing duties of NB/Sub Adjutant of 27th Assam Rifles, ill-treated Smti. Renuka Devi by not providing her accommodation, maligning her by falsely implicating with other South Indian troops, caused mental harassment by carrying out unauthorized police verification and threatening her with loss of job and thus tried to pressurize her to have sexual intercourse with him. 4. On the basis of the said allegations of Smti. Renuka Devi, the authority initiated departmental proceeding and after inquiry, Respondent No. 1 dismissed the Petitioner from service. When he came to learn regarding the said order of dismissal, though the same was not communicated to him, being dissatisfied with the result of the said disciplinary proceeding the Petitioner filed one writ petition before this Court which was registered as C.R. No. 249 of 1993 wherein the Petitioner prayed for cancellation of the show cause notice dated 14.12.1992 issued by the Director General of Assam Rifles as well as the letter dated 15.12.1992 and the order of dismissal, if any, in connection with the proceeding. While the said writ petition was pending before this Court, the Petitioner was allowed pension as he had retired after attaining the age of retirement in view of the interim order of this Court dated 10.02.1993 and ultimately after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 3.9.2002, dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him in the said proceeding. Against the said judgment of the writ Court, the Petitioner did not prefer any appeal even after dismissal from service, the authority did not allegedly give effect to the dismissal order and granted pension to the Petitioner, accordingly he was drawing the same through the State Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch till November 2006. All of a sudden surprisingly the Petitioner received a letter from the said Branch of State Bank of India by which he was informed that as per order of the Respondents his pension has been stopped and he was not allowed to draw his pension from the month of January 2006. In response to the said letter the Petitioner filed representation before the Bank authorities on 18.01.2007 requesting them to let him know the basis of stoppage of his pension and also if there is any order from the Respondents, to supply the same. But the Bank authority did not supply any copy of the order. Thereafter, the Petitioner also submitted representation to the Director General of Assam Rifles requesting him to furnish a copy of the order by which the Bank was asked to stop his pension. But he was not supplied with such copy of the order by the Respondents till filing of the writ petition, being aggrieved with the order of Respondent No. 1 about the dismissal from service and also stoppage of pension, Petitioner prefers the instant writ petition with the prayer stated supra. 5. To resist the claim of the Petitioner the Respondents filed detailed counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the Petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule-11 of the CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 16.01.1993 for outraging modesty of one Smti. Renuka Devi and the said order of dismissal was passed after holding a proper inquiry under Rule-14 of the CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965, wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner was also proved. Admittedly the Petitioner filed C.R. No. 273 of 1993 renumbered as C.R. No. 249 of 1993 before this Court with the prayer for quashing the show cause notice issued to him prior to awarding major penalty and the High Court vide interim order dated 10.02.1993 directed the Respondents that service of the Petitioner shall not be disturbed and, accordingly, the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service. The Respondents contested the said writ petition by filing detailed counter affidavit wherein it was specifically stated that the action taken against the Petitioner was in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. During pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner retired w.e.f. 31.01.1995 after completion of 35 years and 16 days of service and he was granted pensionary benefits. But ultimately the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner on 03.09.2002 being devoid of any merit. Thereafter in view of the aforesaid Court's order dated 03.09.2002 the Pay and Accounts Officer, Assam Rifles, Shillong was instructed by the DG, Assam Rifles, to stop the pension and cancel the PPO in respect of the Petitioner as per the terms of Rule-24 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 6. By way of filing an additional affidavit the Respondents also contended that due to mistake and wrong interpretation of the interim order of this Court Petitioner was allowed pension though he was not entitled to the same in view of the provisions of Rule-24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable to the Assam Rifles personnel. As the Petitioner did not challenge the order of this Court dated 03.09.2002 passed in the earlier C.R. No. 249 of 1993 for over four years, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Respondents contended that they did not commit any wrong by stopping the pension of the Petitioner as he is not entitled to the same in accordance with law and it is also contended that if any payment/pension is made through bona fide mistake to an ineligible person the authority has the right to correct/rectify the said mistake by way of stopping the said pension, and deduct the amount of pension paid to the Petitioner without any authority of law but that has not yet been done and the same is under consideration by the authority. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Lodh, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner in his usual fairness submits that it is admitted position that the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner being C.R. No. 249 of 1993 but to support the case of the Petitioner he refers to the observation part of the said judgment of learned Single Judge inter alia that- The disciplinary authority, in view of Rule-15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 having been within his legal competence disagreed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry authority and on analysis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion to hold the delinquent guilty of the charge and, as such, the second show cause notice was issued asking for representation to be filed by the delinquent officer within 15 days and, thereafter on consideration of evidence on record, the disciplinary authority held the delinquent Petitioner guilty of the charge and imposed the punishment, that final order has not been challenged. 8. Regarding the aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Lodh, learned senior Counsel submits that the order of dismissal of the Petitioner was not the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and as the Petitioner was allowed pension even after his order of dismissal, the said action of the Respondents proves that the Respondents did not give effect to the order of dismissal, rather treated the Petitioner to be in service and as such the Respondents have no authority to stop the pension of the Petitioner, which was once granted. 9. Mr. Lodh, also submits that the pension is not bounty but it is the property of the Petitioner and the Respondents have no right to stop the same without following the procedure and according to law pension can only be withdrawn either wholly or partly by the President/Governor in a given case. But in the instant case no such order is issued by the President and even not in his name. But in the instant case no such order is issued by the President and even not in his name. He also contended that if an order affects the employee financially it has to be passed after giving opportunity to make out his grievance regarding the said order, hence, the entire action of the Respondents regarding stoppage of pension is unfair, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the said pension was withdrawn without issuing any show cause and for non-issuance of such show cause attracts the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the order of the Respondents regarding stoppage of pension is liable to be set aside and writ petition is required to be allowed by this Court for ends of justice. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied para 16 of the case of B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2472 . 10. While resisting the contention of Mr. Lodh, and supporting the case of the Respondents, Mr. Biswas, submits that the Petitioner was dismissed from service for committing an offence of outraging modesty of one of the staff of the said battalion namely, Renuka Devi, for which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and was found guilty and ultimately dismissed from service after following the proper procedure as prescribed under the law and the Petitioner has also admittedly challenged the said proceeding as well as the order of the dismissal before this Court by filing C.R. No. 249 of 1993 and in the said Civil Rule, though the Petitioner challenged the said second show cause notice but did not challenge the order of dismissal dated 16.01.1993 though the said fact was known to him during pendency of the writ proceeding. In support of his aforesaid contention he refers to the observation of the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition, that 'at no point of time the authority communicated the final order of dismissal and, as such, he could not challenge the same. Even assuming the same to be correct, yet from record it reveals that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner received the copy of the counter affidavit on 24.2.1994 including the Annexures. The Annexure-III of the counter affidavit is nothing but the final order of dismissal from service dated 16.1.1993.' By referring to the same Mr. Even assuming the same to be correct, yet from record it reveals that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner received the copy of the counter affidavit on 24.2.1994 including the Annexures. The Annexure-III of the counter affidavit is nothing but the final order of dismissal from service dated 16.1.1993.' By referring to the same Mr. Biswas submits that due to non-challenge of the dismissal order in the earlier writ petition, the same attains its finality. Mr. Biswas, further referring to para 13 of the writ petition, submits that though the Petitioner himself stated in his writ petition that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the proceeding filed writ petition before this Court praying for cancellation of the show cause notice dated 14.12.1992 and also letter dated 15.12.1992 and the order of dismissal from service. And after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered the judgment on 03.09.2002 dismissing the writ petition and affirming the findings of the disciplinary authority holding the Petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in that proceeding. Mr. Biswas, further submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules earlier service of the Petitioner has already been forfeited after dismissal from service and the said order of dismissal had been upheld by this Court in earlier writ petition and while the earlier service of an employee is forfeited under the provisions of law he is not entitled to any pension. In the instant case, service of the Petitioner was dismissed after following the prescribed procedure in a departmental proceeding and, accordingly, his service has been forfeited and he is not entitled any pension but due to wrong interpretation of the interim order of this Court by the officer of the Respondents, allowed him pension though the interim order was for a limited period. And after dismissal of the writ petition while the authority took up the matter for stoppage of pension detecting the wrong committed by it allowing pension to the Petitioner though he was not entitled to the same after the order of dismissal from service. And after dismissal of the writ petition while the authority took up the matter for stoppage of pension detecting the wrong committed by it allowing pension to the Petitioner though he was not entitled to the same after the order of dismissal from service. He also submits that by this time, it is settled by the Apex Court that payment made through mistake to an employee can be recovered from his pension and bona fide mistake can be rectified at any time, and the Court should not allow perpetuating the said mistake committed earlier due to wrong interpretation of this Court's order dated 10.02.1993 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner. 11. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Biswas, relied upon the case of V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 139 , wherein the Apex Court discussed the mode of recovery of excess amount paid wrongly to an employee. And he further relied upon para 21 in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309 wherein the Apex Court stated that if by an erroneous interpretation of statutory rules pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. 12. This Court has given an anxious thought to the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and records available before it and also the law reports cited by learned Counsel for the parties. For proper appreciation of submission of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be proper for the Court; first to formulate the question arises for decision in the instant writ petition. The question arises for a decision is: Whether after dismissal of an employee after holding proper disciplinary proceeding, the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 confer any right to such dismissed employee to get any pension; and if not whether the said employee has any right over the pension amount allowed to him to draw due to wrong interpretation of the Court's order and whether the employer has the right to correct the mistake committed by it by way of issuing order for stoppage of such pension. 13. 13. It is admitted position as appears from the pleadings of the parties and submission of learned Counsel for the parties that the Petitioner was punished for committing misconduct which followed by an order of dismissal from service after holding disciplinary proceeding as required under the law and the said disciplinary proceeding though challenged by the Petitioner in the earlier writ petition being C.R. No. 249 of 1993, wherein the Petitioner prayed for cancellation of the show cause notice dated 14.12.1992 and did not challenge the order of dismissal though the same was annexed as Annexure-III in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in that case and learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition vide its order dated 3.9.2002 being devoid of merit. Against the said order of dismissal, Petitioner did not prefer any appeal and as a result the order of dismissal passed by the authority as punishment reached finality, though the Petitioner was allowed salary as well as pension by the authority during pendency of the writ petition in view of the interim order dated 10.02.1993 inter alia not to disturb the service of the Petitioner, due to wrong interpretation of the said interim order. Ultimately the authority stopped the pension only after dismissal of the earlier writ petition. It is also admitted position that the Petitioner was aware of the order of dismissal as indicated in the order dated 12.08.2002 in the earlier writ petition. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder: ...yet from record it reveals that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner received the copy of the counter affidavit on 24.2.1994 including the Annexures. The Annexure-III of the counter affidavit is nothing but the final order of dismissal from service dated 16.1.1993. From the order sheet dated 28.2.1994 it reveals that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was aware of the aforesaid Annexure-III appended with the counter affidavit. For better appreciation, the copy of the order sheet dated 28.2.1994 of this Court is reproduced below: Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for one month time to file rejoinder. Prayer is allowed. Rejoinder may be filed on behalf of the Petitioner, if so advised. 14. For better appreciation, the copy of the order sheet dated 28.2.1994 of this Court is reproduced below: Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for one month time to file rejoinder. Prayer is allowed. Rejoinder may be filed on behalf of the Petitioner, if so advised. 14. Now the question arises whether or not after the dismissal of an employee in accordance with law he is entitled to pension and if not, whether allowing to draw pension due to wrong interpretation of an order of the Court confer any right on him to draw the same and whether the employer has the right to rectify its bona fide mistake by way of stopping pension to such employee which was allowed contrary to the provisions of Pension Rules. According to Rule-24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, earlier service of an employee dismissed by way of punishment has to be forfeited and being the Petitioner in the instant case is admittedly a dismissed employee, it can be easily said that due to his dismissal from service his earlier service has already been forfeited. When the earlier service of a person is forfeited he is not entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the authority admittedly allowed him pension though he is not entitled to as per the provisions of Pension Rules due to wrong interpretation of an interim order of this Court dated 10.02.1993. For better understanding Rule-24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is quoted hereunder: 24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal. Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails for forfeiture of his past service. 15. In V. Gangaram (supra) the question came up before the Apex Court is whether an employee while entitled two increment has allowed four increments, the monetary benefits provided to him in excess can be recovered or not. The Apex Court held that he is entitled only two increments and the excess amount can be recovered from the pension payable to the Appellant by way of instalment 16. The Apex Court held that he is entitled only two increments and the excess amount can be recovered from the pension payable to the Appellant by way of instalment 16. In Rakesh Kumar (supra) the Apex Court held that if by an erroneous interpretation of statutory rules pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court and it would be unjustifiable to submit that by an appropriate writ, the writ Court should direct something which is contrary to the statutory rules. The Apex Court also held that in such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution and no person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel and in such cases there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship and if the rules are not providing for grant of pensionary benefits it is for the authority to decide and frame appropriate rules but the Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of so called hardship likely to be caused to a person who has resigned without completing the qualifying service for getting pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the Petitioner is also not entitled pension as per the provisions of Pension Rules his first service being forfeited in view of the provisions of Rule-24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules after his dismissal from service by way of punishment. 17. In the case of Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Naurang Singh and Ors. 1997 (2) SLR 230 , question came before the Apex Court that higher pay scale allowed to the Respondents of that case i.e. Store Keepers in Punjab Engineering College by way of mistake whether can be subsequently corrected or not, though the Tribunal directed the administration to go on repeating the mistake. But the Apex Court specifically stated in para 6 that: 6. We are, however, of the opinion that a mistake committed by the Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. But the Apex Court specifically stated in para 6 that: 6. We are, however, of the opinion that a mistake committed by the Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. The proceedings placed before us clearly show that the pay revision of September 19, 1975 was an unscheduled one, effected merely on the basis of a letter written by the Principal of the College. The Administration no doubt could have rectified that mistake. That would have been the most appropriate course but their failure to do so cannot entitle the Respondents to say that mistake should form a basis for giving the higher pay scale to them also.... 18. In Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 (1) SLR 42, question came before the Apex Court whether the Chowkidars and Mazdoors working as motor pump operators and having passed their tests, would be fitted into the semi-skilled category or skilled category, whom by way of mistake the authority fitted them in the skilled category, later on discovered that it was wrong classification and subsequently directions were issued to fit them in the semi-skilled category and direction to recover arrears paid to them which was challenged by them before different benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ultimately the said question came up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court decided in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment (supra) which is reproduced below: They passed the test and hence become skilled category workmen and also while holding those posts their performance was not found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, the orders were held to have been vitiated by error of law. That is wholly misconceived view. The only relevant question to be considered is whether the Chowkidars and Mazdoors working as motor pump operators and having passed their tests, would be fitted into the semi-skilled category or skilled category. It is not in dispute that semi-skilled is a feeder post for the skilled category. Once they had passed the test, they are necessarily to be fitted into semi-skilled category so that after putting required length of service and other considerations, they would become eligible for promotion into skilled grade. It is not in dispute that semi-skilled is a feeder post for the skilled category. Once they had passed the test, they are necessarily to be fitted into semi-skilled category so that after putting required length of service and other considerations, they would become eligible for promotion into skilled grade. Under these circumstances, the necessary consequence would be that they would be fitted into the category of semi-skilled, consequent to the recommendation of the III Pay Commission. Obviously, realizing this mistake the later bench had held to fit them into the category of semi-skilled and assign the appropriate scale of pay. Being semi-skilled, their scale of pay indisputably is Rs. 210-260. Accordingly, their fitment is correctly assigned as semi-skilled and it is not a case of reversion but one of proper fitment. Under these circumstances, the view of the first Bench of the Calcutta CAT is clearly erroneous in law. 19. In view of the above, this Court hold that the Petitioner was not entitled to the pension which was provided to him illegally when his service had been forfeited and mere allowing him pension due to wrong interpretation does not confer any right on him for getting the same. Hence, according to this Court the stoppage of pension by the Respondents are not illegal as they did not take away any lawful right but only rectified its bona fide mistake which is permissible in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court (supra). As the authority only rectified its mistake and not take away any right of Petitioner he is not entitled any opportunity to make any representation on such action of the Respondent authority and also there is no violation of principles of natural justice. However, still now there is no order of recovery regarding pension amount drawn by the Petitioner, only the authority stopped future pension of the Petitioner. This Court is of further opinion that, such action of the authority cannot be interfered with. However, still now there is no order of recovery regarding pension amount drawn by the Petitioner, only the authority stopped future pension of the Petitioner. This Court is of further opinion that, such action of the authority cannot be interfered with. However, as the Petitioner was allowed by the authority even after his dismissal to discharge his duties leading to retirement in normal course and he, accordingly discharged the same and as the Petitioner had already received salary for the period he worked and pension for the period prior to January 2006, it would not be proper to recover the said amount which was paid to him on his no representation in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 wherein the Apex Court stated "it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them." If such recovery is made at this stage from the Petitioner in the name of correction of mistake committed by the Respondent authority that would be detrimental and amounts to work without pay which is not permissible. However, the authority can go for correction of its mistake so far the entitlement of the prospective pension is concerned and the authority may go for recovery of the amount which had already been paid to the Petitioner from the person who committed the mistake. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed