JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 25.01.2002 (Annexure-4) has approached this writ petition. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired from service w.e.f.31.1.1996. On the scrutiny it came to the notice of Comptroller of Finance, University that the amount of Rs. 43,971.50/- has been paid to the petitioner towards House rent allowance which was objected as inadmissible amount and as such the decision has taken to recover from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity pension of the petitioner. 3. The ground taken by the petitioner vide communication order dated 25.01.2002 contending the decision of the University to be withheld the amount of D.C.R.G. to the tune of Rs. 43,971.50/- which is absolutely illegal, without any jurisdiction and without following the law prescribed under the statute. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-University has submitted that in pursuance to the provision as contained in Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension), 1992, direction was given to recover the amount of D.C.R.G. as because the petitioner without any authority has received the excess amount against the House rent allowance and as such the Chancellor has issued vide letter dated 3.08.2001 in pursuance of the said decision has taken to recover the said amount from the D.C.R.G. 5. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The fact which is not in dispute that the petitioner was superannuated w.e.f.31.01.1996 from the post of Professor. 7. The amount of Rs. 43,971.50/- has been directed to be recovered from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner. It is settled that after the retirement from the Government service relationship of the employer and the employee breaks away and the employee will get its pension if the service of pensionary benefit is provided by the State Government and it is State Government competent to take any decision regarding recovery of any amount or withholding any part of pension in view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992 which speaks as follows :- 7. Right to Government to withhold or withdraw pension :- (1) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of ay pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement : Provided that the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the final orders are passed : Provided further that when a part of pension is withheld/withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit. (2)(a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in Sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service : Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority, subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its finding to the Government. (b) Such departmental proceedings as referred to in Sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment – (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such instruction; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may, direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. (c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Clauses (a) and (b), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 66 shall be sanctioned. (e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant.” 8. From perusal of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Service (Pension) 1992, the authority to recover the full or part of the pension has been provided with the Government if it is found guilty of grave misconduct that the Government has ascertained the pecuniary allowance in case of any judicial or departmental proceeding. Here in this case, direction has been given by the Chancellor of the University for making recovery of an amount of Rs. 43,971.50/- only on the basis of the decision taken on 3.08.2001 which means no proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner under any statutory provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992. 9. Moreover, the recovery amount has been made by the Chancellor of the University, who cannot be said to be the Government as has been submitted by learned counsel for the University in view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992, the order of the recovery has been passed. In view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992, it is the Government, who is competent to pass an order of recovery if the concerned employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in departmental proceeding or any judicial proceeding. 10. In view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992, it is the Government, who is competent to pass an order of recovery if the concerned employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in departmental proceeding or any judicial proceeding. 10. From perusal of the pleading made in this writ petition and the submission made by the parties, admittedly the order of recovery passed by the Chancellor, who has taken a decision on 3.08.2001 and made applicable to the petitioner and as such in view of provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992, the Chancellor has no jurisdiction to pass an order recovery from the D.C.R.G. 11. Hence the order of recovery amount of Rs. 43,971.50/- without any jurisdiction. 12. In this regard the matter has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & others vrs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 wherein at it has been held that the pension and gratuity is not bounty in this context wherein at paragraph-14 and 16 of the said judgment which is being quoted herein below. This aspect “The right to receive pension was recognized as a right to property by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad vrs. State of Bihar, as is apparent from the following discussion: (SCC) pp. 342-43, paras 27-33). “27. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1) (f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same. 28. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and the respondents by an executive order dated 12-6-1968 have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on 5-8-1996. There is only a bald averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on 5-8-1996. There is only a bald averment in the counter-affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, was not prepared to take up the position that the right to receive pension cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension. We understand the learned counsel to urge that if the State had passed an order granting pension and later on resiles from the order, the later order may be considered to affect the petitioner’s right regarding property so as to Attracts 19(1)(f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution. 29. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a reference to the material provision in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It mat be that for the purposes of qualifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the rules. The rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognize the right of person like the petitioners to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein. 30. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Articles 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India. It was held that such a right constitutes “property” and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in letters patent appeal by the Union of India. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in letters patent appeal by the Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v/s Bhagwant Singh approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is “property” within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could not be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as “property” cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority. 31. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. State of Punjab. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. 32. This Court in State of M.P. v. Ranojirao Shinde had to consider the question whether a “cash grant” is “property” within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing „it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property.” 33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by clause(5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated 12.6.1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. Therefore, it follows that the order dated 12.6.1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “Property”. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”. Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning o this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.” 13. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of State of Jharkhand & others vrs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & others (supra) since the gratuity is not bounty hence no recovery can be made from the said amount without resorting the statutory provision made in this regard and statutory provision as contained in Rule 7 of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) 1992. 14. Since in this case the order of recovery is without resorting any statutory provision, hence the decision of the University permitting recovery an amount is highly illegal without any jurisdiction. 15. In view of the reason stated hereinabove, the decision of the University is hereby quashed with the liberty to proceed in accordance with law if so desires. 16. With such observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.