ORDER : Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 01.07.2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.1998 while working on the post of Accountant at Palamau Treasury. A First Information Report being R.C. Case No. 4 (A) of 2001 was registered in which the petitioner was not named as an accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 18.05.2002 in which the petitioner was sent for trial. By order dated 29.09.2009, the petitioner has been convicted in the said case and thereafter, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2005. By the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been withheld and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that, the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 was passed under the Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and therefore, there was no necessity of issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 was passed. Paragraph nos. 5-7 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below: 5. “That it is stated and submitted that previously the petitioner was employed as Accountant in the Palamau Treasury. After his retirement the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case pertaining to the Animal Husbandry Scam. 6. That it is stated and submitted that annexure-2 of the writ application has been passed in view of the conviction of the petitioner in the Animal Husbandry Scam. 7. That it is stated and submitted that as per Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension and the government reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing full pension or any part of it, if the petitioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the plea taken by the respondents is not tenable in as much as, the very object of providing pension to an ex-employee would be frustrated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the plea taken by the respondents is not tenable in as much as, the very object of providing pension to an ex-employee would be frustrated. Long back in “Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , the on going debate whether the pension is a bounty or it is paid in recognition of the service of an employee, was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that pension is property and it is equated with the right to property under Article 31 of the Constitution of India. 6. In “D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India”, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 28. “Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want. 29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. 31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to 10 months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.” 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus, submitted that an employee who has put fruitful years of his life in the service of the employer cannot be denied benefit of pension without any show-cause notice to him. 8. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that, since the petitioner was convicted for a serious offence, in terms of Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules his pension was withheld and since issuing a show-cause notice would have been a mere formality, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He has further submitted that, moreover, under Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is no requirement of issuing show-cause notice to the ex-employee. 9. Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is extracted below:- “Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules : Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive.” 10. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the order under Rule 43 (a) has to be passed by the government. From the impugned order it does not appear that it has been passed with the approval of the government. From the philosophy behind the grant of pension it would be apparent that, the retiral benefits to an employee are valuable rights of an ex-employee. Deprivation of pension/retiral benefits of an ex-employee would have serious consequences. The very object of providing pension, that is, the ex-employee should not be left in destitution, is frustrated if the procedure which has been adopted by the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 is approved. The principle of natural justice requires that when any action is taken against a person which would have evil consequences, a right of hearing and/or a show-cause notice must be given to the person, though the statutory provision may not expressly provide the same. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 is quashed.