TOPPAGE OF PENSION ON ADOPTING FOREIGN CITIZENSHIPS

[BRIG NARINDER DHAND]

THIS IS OUR GLOBAL MAIL- PLEASE DONOT REPLY TO THIS MAIL

Dear Veterans,

A fello veteran had raised a qry on the subject.

The reply to the qry on subject is placed below for the information of all members.

Quote

govt rule for stoppage of pension on adopting foreign citizenships

Generally, adopting foreign citizenship does not automatically lead to the stoppage of pension for Indian government employees or ex-servicemen. However, certain rules and regulations might apply, and it's crucial to understand them to avoid any issues with pension disbursement. 

For Central Government Employees:

No automatic stoppage:

The Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare (DoPPW) clarified that merely acquiring foreign citizenship doesn't result in the forfeiture of pension.

Intimation is crucial:

Pensioners are required to inform their pension disbursing authority (like the bank or the concerned office) about the change in citizenship.

Conditions for continuation:

Pension will continue to be paid to the pensioner, provided they adhere to the rules and regulations, including any applicable reporting requirements.

Specific cases:

In the case of armed forces personnel, PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad, was previously authorized to decide on the continuation of pension, but this was revised, and pension continues to be paid even after a change in nationality. 

For Ex-Servicemen:

Similar rules apply:

The same principle of not automatically forfeiting pension applies to ex-servicemen.

Intimation and adherence:

They also need to inform their respective pension disbursing authorities about the change in citizenship. 

General Guidelines:

Life Certificate:

Pensioners need to submit a life certificate, usually annually, to their pension disbursing authority. 

Non-employment/Re-employment certificate:

If applicable, non-employment or re-employment certificates may also be required. 

Re-marriage/Marriage certificate:

Similarly, relevant certificates related to marriage or re-marriage, if applicable, need to be submitted. 

Consult with relevant authorities:

It's always recommended to consult with the specific pension sanctioning authority or the pension disbursing agency for detailed information and clarification regarding individual cases. 

In essence, while adopting foreign citizenship doesn't automatically lead to pension loss, proper intimation to the relevant authorities and adherence to the applicable rules are essential for continued pension disbursement. 

UNQUOTE

ब्रिगेडियर नरेन्द्र ढंड

Brig Narinder Dhand

Founder & Convener

Veterans’ Web Portals,

https://bit.ly/4et1wo2

EMPOWERMENT thru’ KNOWLEDGE.

NB - BE PART OF OUR  GLOBAL VETERANS' FAMILY - 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN  OUR NETWORK.

[Ravindra Waman Pathak]

Dear Sir

The rules for NRI pensioners including Non Indian citizens are attached

I am a proud Hindu and I believe Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace.

 People often ask me what we can do for the soldiers. The answer is "be an Indian who is worth fighting for. "See if you can be one"

Do I have enemies? Yes.Good. That means I’ve stood up for something, sometime in my life.

Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Veteran)

Member Veterans Pension Group

Adviser War Widows Association

1 Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road
Shivajinagar 

Pune 411016
raviw...@gmail.com
9822329340  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "veteransindia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to veteransindi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/PH0P222MB03350728B71B1A48946E63EEF92FA%40PH0P222MB0335.NAMP222.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Chandra Nath]

Sir,

It is not the process/procedure but eligibility that is in question.

Military Pension: Can the military pension be linked to continued citizenship. Can the regulation brought in with retrospective effect? Is this compliance with the basic principles of justice if pension is treated judicially as deferred wages?

Let’s unpack the question step-by-step from a constitutional law, service law, and principles of natural justice perspective — particularly for India, but also noting comparable global jurisprudence.

---

1. Linking Military Pension to Continued Citizenship

• Current Indian Law:
  Under the Pension Regulations for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, pension entitlement is based on service rendered and qualifying years in uniform. There is no statutory requirement tying pension eligibility to continued Indian citizenship unless explicitly provided by legislation.

  • Civil pensions in India under the CCS (Pension) Rules also do not require citizenship retention as a condition, unless there is express legal provision (rare and usually linked to security-sensitive roles).

  • For military personnel, loss of citizenship could trigger restrictions on national security–related benefits, but pension — as a property right — is not automatically forfeited.

• Constitutional Safeguards:

  • Article 300A: Pension, once earned, is “property” and cannot be taken away except by authority of law.

  • Article 14: Any classification must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.

  • Article 19 & 21: Link to livelihood and dignity.

• International Practice:
  In many countries (UK, US, Australia), loss of citizenship does not automatically extinguish military pension rights, though payments might be subject to tax or banking restrictions.

Conclusion:
Unless Parliament amends the law to make continued citizenship a statutory condition for pension, such a linkage is not automatically lawful.

---

2. Retrospective Regulation

• General Rule:

  • Prospective Application: Service conditions and pension rights are generally altered prospectively.

  • Retrospective Application: Possible if the enabling statute explicitly allows it, but courts are strict when the change takes away vested rights.

  • Pension rights, once vested, are generally protected unless there was fraud, misrepresentation, or the original grant was invalid.

• Key Case Law:

  • D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983): Pension is not a bounty but a right based on service; changes in pension schemes cannot arbitrarily deprive a class of pensioners.

  • Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971): Pension is a statutory right, not a gratuity at the government’s pleasure.

  • Courts have struck down retrospective changes that adversely affect pension already earned unless clear public interest and statutory backing exist.

Conclusion:
A retrospective rule linking pension to citizenship could be struck down if it takes away accrued rights without compelling public interest and explicit statutory authority.

---

3. Compliance with Basic Principles of Justice

If pension is judicially considered “deferred wages” (as in Nakara, Deokinandan), then:

• Natural Justice: Removing it after service is complete amounts to a unilateral deprivation of earned remuneration.

• Rule of Law: Any deprivation must have a clear legal basis, be non-arbitrary, and pass proportionality tests.

• International Labour Standards: ILO conventions treat pensions as earned benefits, not conditional gratuities.

Judicial Likely View:

• Linking pension to citizenship after the fact would likely be seen as penalising a past act (renunciation of citizenship) without due process, akin to imposing a civil disability ex post facto.

• Courts may uphold such a law only if:

  1. It is enacted by Parliament (not just executive order).

  2. It serves a compelling state interest (e.g., national security).

  3. It applies prospectively to new entrants, not retroactively to existing pensioners.

---

✅ Bottom Line:

• Linkage Possible? Yes, but only via explicit statutory provision — currently not the case in India.

• Retrospective Application? Constitutionally vulnerable if it affects accrued rights.

• Principles of Justice? Likely violative if pension is treated as deferred wages, unless narrowly tailored, with proportionality and due process.

What about eligibility for family pension if the pensioner's spouse remains Indian?

A fellow veteran had raised a query on the subject and the query has been answered appropriately.

No further questions need be raised or answered. 

The "fellow veteran" has been duly replied to.

Chandra Nath

7760928824

______________

The Armed Forces Officer 2025

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. Jon Roland, 1976

I have only one passion: the love of liberty and human dignity.  In my view, all governmental forms are only more or less perfect means to satisfy that holy and legitimate passion of men—Tocqueville.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/CACvc9LBK0H%3D6Hj7KCoa0cc8baw4sqqoMj8y3MMKbny_CPaqYSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chandra Nath]

The issue is more complex than what the veteran who raised the question could have imagined.( He obviously asked for eligibility/ineligibility of someone else, not about himself, of course!)

For a country like India to stop such a pension on this ground: First they have to make the following changes retrospectively 1. Post independent pension of those who served the crown. 2. Stop the pension of Nepali citizens who are Indian pensioners. 3. Stop the family pension of spouses who are not Indian citizens. 4. Stop only part of the pension of the individual but continue the pension of Indian spouses. 5. Any change can be changed on the principle above that the pension is conditional to continuing citizenship. 6.Cannot be stopped on the principle any law passed can be on prospective and not retrospective. Comment critically on the above and also citing other international cases.

1) “Post-independence pension of those who served the Crown”

Assessment: Weak and legally fraught if the idea is to curtail such pensions retrospectively.

• Continuity of liabilities: After independence, India assumed predecessor liabilities by constitutional design (Arts. 294–295). That umbrella has long covered pension obligations, which today are further protected as property under Art. 300A; deprivation requires authority of law (not executive instruction). Any blanket reversal now would collide with these continuity and property protections. S3WaaS

• Judicial stance on pension: The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated pension as a right (not a bounty), the “deferred portion of compensation,” with arbitrary deprivation impermissible (e.g., Deokinandan Prasad; D.S. Nakara). Indian Kanoon+1
  Bottom line: A retroactive claw-back would face serious constitutional risk; only a clear statute (or, realistically, a constitutional amendment) could even attempt it—and it would still face Art. 14 scrutiny for arbitrariness.

---

2) “Stop the pension of Nepali citizens who are Indian pensioners”

Assessment: Legally untenable without repudiating long-standing treaties/policies.

• Treaty & practice: Indian Gorkha recruitment/pensions rest on the 1947 Tripartite Agreement and subsequent bilateral practice. India continues to disburse defence pensions in Nepal via dedicated Pension Paying Offices (Kathmandu, Pokhara, Dharan). Wikipediadesw.gov.in+1

• Current government position: Official guidance recognizes entitlement irrespective of citizenship changes for pensioners residing abroad. Pensioners Portal
  Bottom line: Cutting pensions to Nepali ex-servicemen would contradict treaty practice and current policy and invite successful legal/diplomatic challenge.

---

3) “Stop the family pension of spouses who are not Indian citizens”

Assessment: Lacks a current legal basis; would be vulnerable under equality and property principles.

• Rules don’t impose a citizenship bar: The CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 define “family” and govern eligibility; they do not condition family pension on Indian citizenship. Pensioners Portal+1cpao.nic.in

• Policy on citizenship changes: GoI explicitly notes that a change in citizenship by an NRI pensioner does not affect entitlement; by parity of reasoning, imposing a citizenship filter on surviving spouses (who take under the service member’s earned entitlement) would be open to Art. 14/300A challenge. Pensioners Portal
  Bottom line: A citizenship-based disqualification for family pension would be a new restriction requiring an express statute and would still face proportionality review.

---

4) “Stop only part of the pension of the individual but continue pension of Indian spouses”

Assessment: Internally inconsistent with the pension scheme architecture.

• Scheme design: Service pension accrues to the retiree; family pension is a post-death derivative benefit. There is no concept of “splitting” a living retiree’s pension to a spouse while penalizing the retiree. Such a construct would be ultra vires the extant rules and almost certainly arbitrary. cpao.nic.in
  Bottom line: Without a wholly new statutory regime (and compelling justification), this would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

---

5) “Make a general principle that pension is conditional on continuing citizenship”

Assessment: Prospectively possible by statute in theory, but practically hemmed in.

• Prospective only (see #6): Any such condition could at most bind future entrants or future accruals, not vested entitlements of existing pensioners. Indian Kanoon

• Hard conflicts: It would clash with (i) India’s stated policy that entitlement survives citizenship change, and (ii) treaty/bilateral frameworks for Gorkhas in Nepal. Pensioners Portaldesw.gov.inWikipedia

• Equality concerns: A citizenship condition invites Art. 14 challenges unless the State shows a strong, rational nexus (e.g., narrowly-tailored national security grounds) and passes proportionality.

---

6) “Cannot be stopped because laws are prospective, not retrospective”

Assessment: Directionally correct for adverse changes to vested pension, with nuance.

• Indian position: Pension is property; it cannot be withheld without authority of law. Retrospective diminution of vested pension is particularly suspect and has been struck down when arbitrary (Deokinandan, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava). Indian Kanoon+1

• Caveats: The legislature can enact retrospective laws, but courts examine whether vested rights are unjustly taken and whether there is a compelling, narrowly-tailored public interest (and clear statutory language). Beneficial retrospection (e.g., liberalizations) is routine; adverse retrospection draws strict scrutiny. Indian Kanoon

---

Comparative signals (what other jurisdictions tell us)

• UK / ECHR (residence-based changes, not citizenship):
  The Carson litigation upheld the UK’s refusal to uprate state pensions for residents in certain countries; the ECHR accepted wide policy latitude (no violation of A1P1 with Art. 14). This shows states may condition indexation on residence or bilateral treaties—but it did not endorse extinguishing pensions wholesale. UK ParliamentHUDOC

• UK Gurkha pensions:
  Challenges to differential Gurkha pension schemes failed in UK courts and at the ECHR, which found the distinctions objectively justified. Again, the issue was quantum/scheme design, not denial of the core entitlement. Employment Cases UpdateHUDOC

• ECHR on pension as “possessions”:
  Cases like Stec and Azinas recognize pension entitlements as “possessions” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, permitting regulation but requiring justification and proportionality where benefits are reduced/forfeited. HUDOC+1

• United States (a contrasting baseline):
  Flemming v. Nestor allowed Congress to terminate Social Security payments to deported persons; US law views Social Security as a statutory entitlement, not a contract. That contrasts with India’s stronger property-right treatment. Larionoff conversely protected vested military pay/bonus once conditions were met, limiting retroactive claw-back. Justia LawSocial SecurityLegal Information Institute

Takeaway from abroad: Other systems permit policy levers (residence-based uprating limits; scheme redesign), but outright confiscation or citizenship-based forfeiture of earned pensions is unusual and must clear high legality and proportionality bars.

---

Net conclusion

• A blanket doctrine that “pension is conditional on continuing citizenship” would collide with:
  (i) Indian constitutional protections (Art. 300A, Art. 14),
  (ii) settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that pension is deferred wages (not a gratuity), and
  (iii) India’s explicit administrative/treaty practice (NRI/OCI guidance; Gorkha pensions in Nepal). Indian Kanoon+1Pensioners Portaldesw.gov.in

• Retrospective deprivation of already-accrued pensions would be especially vulnerable and is likely to be struck down absent clear statutory authority and a compelling, narrowly-drawn public interest. Indian Kanoon

[Ravindra Waman Pathak]

A pension can not be stopped except by a court order and that is the law

I am a proud Hindu and I believe Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace.

 People often ask me what we can do for the soldiers. The answer is "be a​n ​Indian who is worth fighting for. "See if you can be one​"

Do I have enemies? ​Yes.​Good. That means I’ve stood up for something, sometime in my life.

Cdr Ravindra Waman Pathak I.N. (Veteran)

Member ​Veterans ​Pension Group

Adviser War Widows Association

1 Surashri,1146 Lakaki Road
Shivajinagar 

Pune 411016
raviw...@gmail.com
9822329340  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/veteransindia/CAAoj_dWA%2Bj8srQofC1oiDDFa3MKD31WHGj2kC6g-mAGPSy44Uw%40mail.gmail.com.