Radheshyam Shukla and 14 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others

¶1

AFR

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32012

¶3

Reserved on : 19.02.2025

¶4

Delivered on : 06.03.2025

¶5

Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19031 of 2024 Petitioner :- Radheshyam Shukla And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nawal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Along with

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1169 of 2025 Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1207 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Kailash Narain Trigunayat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1357 of 2025 Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Dwivedi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Anand Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶9

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1372 of 2025 Petitioner :- Daroga Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶10

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1378 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hakim Singh Verma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶11

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1469 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Pandey And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶12

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16842 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramji Tripathi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶13

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17403 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Kuber Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Chandra Prakash Misra

¶14

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶15

2 of 17

¶16

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17593 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sena Pati Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi,Shailesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶17

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18240 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18812 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Rai Respondent :- The State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶19

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18851 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kashiram Kushwaha And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶20

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19554 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ram Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶21

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20725 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Pandey And 5 Others

¶22

3 of 17

¶23

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶24

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20824 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Tripathi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Shukla,Kamlendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶25

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20905 of 2024 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaya Tiwari,Satish Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶26

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 273 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sant Lal Sharma And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶27

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 703 of 2025 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Gupta And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶28

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 719 of 2025 Petitioner :- Karuna Shankar Dubey And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

¶29

4 of 17

¶30

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Singh Som Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶31

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 737 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sri Narayan Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶32

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 767 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Srvastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadashiv Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Umrao And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chheda Lal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶34

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 859 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hayatullah And 12 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Jee Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶35

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 955 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶36

5 of 17

¶37

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 970 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr Sudha Goyal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1240 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pitam Singh Yaduvanshi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶39

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1646 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rambabu Sharma And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶40

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1676 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶41

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19099 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramveer Singh Verma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶42

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶43

6 of 17

¶44

Heard S/Sri Nawal Kishor Mishra, Praveen Tiwari, Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Rajesh Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Rai, Ram Krishna Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Pashant Singh, Anurag Shukla, Satish Chandra Tiwari, Brijendra Kumar Srivastava, Suresh Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Vinod Kumar Singh, Chandra Bhan Gupta, Chheda Lal Verma, Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar Sharma and Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsels for petitioners, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. for State along with other connected writ petitions.

¶45

This is bunch of writ petitions. All the petitioners have retired many years ago from the U.P. Government of Higher Education Department and are receiving pension and they have received benefits of a lump sum amount by Commutating their respective pension under Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941.

¶46

The petitioners are aggrieved that their commutation amount has already recovered in about 10 to 12 years, however, by an Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2008, recovery from pension is directed to continue up to 15 years and as such the government has received much more amount than it was commuted. All the writ petitioners have challenged the said Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2008 on similar ground that according to their contention, the commutation amount was not loan, therefore, the exact amount could only be recovered and not more.

¶47

Learned counsels for petitioners have also argued that there is no provision that by way of an Office Memorandum

¶48

7 of 17

¶49

dated 08.12.2008, number of years to recover commutation value could be determined upto 15 years, without any basis and otherwise also it was excessive and arbitrary.

¶50

This Court has earlier asked the counsels for petitioners to go through a recent judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agrawal and 48 others versus Union of India and another, 2025:AHC:6439-DB , wherein similar arguments were rejected in regard to petitioners therein i.e. employees of Punjab National Bank. For reference the relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

¶51

“Having accepted such offer, a binding contract comes into existence between the employee and the employer as per which the original pension is to be restored after 15 years. Having acquiesced to the commutation policy with open eyes, it is not open for the retiring employee to contend later that the period of restoration of full pension be reduced from 15 years to 10 years. Whether or not the lumpsum amount gets equalised on expiry of 10 years or 11 year is not decisive or material. What is material is the nature of obligation which enures upon the parties when the retiring employee accepts the provision of commutation of pension. The employee with his open eyes having availed the policy, cannot subsequently turn around or seek modification in its terms. The argument that the table or the figures were not adequately disclosed, is also not acceptable, inasmuch as the chart specifies the manner in which the commutation is to be fixed and the period after which the original pension is to be restored. In case, the employees had any misgivings about it, they could have sought appropriate clarification before accepting the offer. Once, the petitioners have acquiesced to the policy and accepted the offer, their subsequent attempt to resile or seek change in its computation would clearly be impermissible.

¶52

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶53

The view taken by us clearly finds support from the adjudication made by the Supreme Court in "Common Cause", A Registered Society And Others Vs. Union of

¶54

8 of 17

¶55

India, (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 142, R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India And Others, (1999) 8 SCC 106 as well the judgment of Delhi High Court in Forum Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union of India & Another, 2019 SCC Online Del 6610 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shila Devi Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 9426 of 2023. “

¶56

In regard to above judgment, learned counsels for petitioners have submitted that in their case there was no contract or specific regulation in regard to period of 15 years for the purpose of return of commuted amount.

¶57

Per contra, learned counsels for State have supported the impugned order and referred that issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court in ‘Common Cause’ A Registered Society and others Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 142 .

¶58

I have considered the above submission and perused the record.

¶59

It is not under much dispute that all petitioners have got benefit of a lump sum amount after commutation of their respective pension at the time when they respectively attained the age of superannuation and pension was determined. Relevant Rules of Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941 are reproduced hereinafter :-

¶60

“4. उक्त नि�यम-3 के प्रावधा�ों तथा एतास्मि�म� पश्चात निवनि�र्दि�ष्ट शत� के अध्यधी� और प्रभाव को पूरा कर�े के लि$ए बजट प्रावधा� अस्मि�तत्व के ……….भी, निकसी सरकारी सेवक जिजसको ये नि�यम $ागू होते है, को पेंश�, जो जिसनिव$, नि�यमाव$ी के अधी� उसको �वीकृत निकया गया है, के 40% से अ�धिधक निकसी भाग के एकमुश्त अ�ायगी के लि$ए राशिशकृत कर�े की अ�ुमधित �ी जा सकेगी, परन्तु

¶61

(क) निव�ेशू मुद्रा में है अतः अप्रासंनिगत है अतः मुनिद्रत �हीं

¶62

(ख) जब पेंश� रूपये में सं�ेय हो, तब

¶63

9 of 17

¶64

(I) राशिशकरण के बा� पेंश� का अवशेष निकसी व्यनिक्त के माम$ें में 20 रू० प्रधितमाह अब छठे वेत� आयोग की सं�तुधितयों के अ�ुसार रू० 2100/- से कम �हीं होगा, तथा

¶65

(II) साधारणतया राशिशकृत मूल्य �ीच निवनि�र्दि�ष्ट उद्दे श्यों मे ं से एक या अधिधके , यथापर व्यय निकया जाएगा

¶66

(1) गृह यह गृह�थ$ का सधिGमाण पु�H नि�माH ण या क्रयH

¶67

(2) ऋण का परिरसमाप�

¶68

(3) बच्चो या आश ् रतों की शिशक्षा

¶69

(4) , और निववाह सम्बन्धी व्यय

¶70

(5) निकसी व्यवसाय या उपक्रम को प्रारम्भ कर�ा।

¶71

परन्तु यह और निक पूवHवतR परन्तुक के खण्ड क तथा ख के प्रयोज�ों के लि$ए पेंश� की ध�राशिश की संगण�ा कर�े में इसमें भारत या निकसी अऩ्य सरकार के राज�व से आवे�क को सं�ेय निकसी अन्य �थायी पेंश� या पेंश�रो के राशिशकृत भाग को जोडा जा सकेगा।

¶72

निटप्पणी- ऐसे सरकारी सेवक, जिजसे 1 अप्रै$, 1948 को या के बा� भतR निकया गया है, तथा सरकारी सेवक, जो उस धितशिथ के पह$े से सेवा में थे निकन्तु जिजस�े नि�यम 16 के प्रथम परन्तुक के अधी� 40% राशिश अंश�ायी भनिवष्य नि�धिध पेंश� बीमा नि�यमाव$ी, 1948 का चु�ाव निकया है, को इस नि�यम के अधी� तथा निवनिहत पेंश� के आधे से अ�ाधिधक निकसी भाग के ब�$े उस परन्तुक के अधी� उसे सं�ेय वा�तनिवक पेंश� के 40% से अ�ाधिधक निकसी भाग की एकमुश्त अ�ायगी के लि$ए राशिशकृत कर�े की अ�ुमधित �ी जा सकेगी, यनि� वह उस नि�यमाव$ी के नि�यम 19 के प्रथम परन्तुक के अधी� अप�े को वा�तव में सं�ेय पेंश� को आहरिरत कर�े का चु�ाव करता है।

¶73

(2) उ०प्र० उ�ारीकृत पेंश� नि�यमाव$ी, 1961 के अध्यधई�, सरकारी सेवक के माम$े में, उसको वा�तव में सं�ेय पेश� के भाग, जिजसे एकमुश्त अ�ायगी के लि$ए राशिशकृत निकया जा सकता है, का नि�धाHरण उक्त नि�यमाव$ी के नि�यम 9 के अ�ुसार निकया जाएगा।

¶74

साधारणतया जिसनिव$ सेवा निवनि�यम के अ�ुच्छे� 353 के अधी� �वीकृत अ�ुकम्पा भत्ता के राशिशकरण को अ�ुज्ञात निकया जाएगा, निकन्तु राज्य सरकार ऐसे भत्ता के राशिशकरण को �वीकृत कर सकेगी, यनि� उसे समाधा� है निक राशिशकरण राशिशकरणकताH के परिरवार के �थायी $ाभ के लि$ए होगा।

¶75

जब तक अन्यथा नि��ेश � नि�या जाये, आवे��-पत्र इस नि�यमाव$ी के भाग �ो में वर् ण ित प्रनिक्रया के अ�ुसार नि�म्�लि$लिखत को सम्बोधिधत निकये जायेंगे--

¶76

(क) ऐसे पेंश�भोनिगयों के माम$े जो भारतीय कोषागारों से अप�ी पेंश� आहरिरत, करते हो या जो ऐसे का$ो�ी के, जिज�का कोई $ेखा महा$ेखाकार, केन्द्रीय राज�व में हो, नि�वासी होते हुए �था�ीय कोषागारों से अप�ी पेंश�

¶77

10 of 17

¶78

आहरिरत करते हों, यथास्मि�थधित, राज्य सरकार को या राशिशकरण करा�े की �वीकृधित �े�े के लि$ए सशक्त प्राधिधकारी को; और

¶79

(ख) सम�त अन्य पेंश� भोनिगयों के माम$े में, भारत के उच्चायुक्त को।

¶80

*[7. (1) कोई राशिशकरण तब तक �वीकृत �हीं निकया जायगा जब तक निके - पंश�भोगी �े सक्षम धिचनिकत्सीय प्राधिधकारी से इस आशय का एक प्रमाणे पत्र प्र�तुत �हीं कर नि�या ह निक उसका शारीरिरक �वा�ै थ्य तथा जीव� का$ की प्रत्यासा ऐसी ह जो राशिशकरण को ै न्यायोधिचत ठहराय।े भारत में सं�ेय पेंश� के सम्बन्ध में राज्य सरकार या राशिशकरण �वीकताH प्राधिधकारी को भी हो, अप�े �वनिववेक नि�णHय पर �ूसरा धिचनिकत्सीय प्रमाण-पत्र प्र�तुत कर�े की अपेक्षा कर सकेगी या धिचनिकत्सीय परिरषद् के समक्ष पेंश� भोगी को उपस्मि�थत हो�े का नि��pश �े सकेगी।

¶81

[परन्तु धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा और सक्षम धिचनिकत्सा प्राधिधकारी से प्रमाण-पत्र प्र�तुत कर�ा आवश्यक �हीं होगा, जहाँ पेंश�भोगी, जिज�में यह पेंश� भोगी है जो �वेच्छा से, अनि�वायH रूप से या अशक्त हो�े पर सेवानि�वृत्त हुआ हो. अप�े/अप�ी सेवानि�वृधित के नि��ांक से या पेंश� भुगता� आ�ेश के जारी हो�े के नि��ांक से, इसमें जो भी पश्चातवततR हो, एक वषH के भीतर निवनिहत प्रपत्र 'कक' में राशिशकरण के लि$ए आवे��-पत्र प्र�तुत करें।

¶82

(2) यनि� आव�क अप�ी धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा के से म्बन्ध मं पूछे गये निकसी लि$लिखते या मौलिखक प्रश्न क उत्तर मे ं अप�ी जा�कारी मे ं ऐसा कोई कथ� करता हे जिजसै े , निमथ्या पाया जाय या निकसी तास्मित्वक ते थ्य को जा�बूझ कर शिछपाता ह तोै यथास्मि�थधित राज्य सरकार या राशिशकरण �वीकृत कर� के लि$ए सशक्त प्राधिधकारीे वा�तनिवक भुगता� निकय जा�े के पूवे निकसी भी समय ऐसी �वीकृधित करH रद्द करे सकता है और ऐसे निकसी कथ� या तथ्य के शिछपा�े को जिसनिव$ सर्दिवस रेगु$ेशन्स के अ�ुच्छे� 351 के प्रयोज�ाथH गम्भीर क�ाचार भी मा�ा जायेगा।

¶83

'[8. राशिशकरण पर सं�ेय एकमुश्त ध�राशिश वह ध�राशिश होगी। जिजसे राष्ट्रपधित द्वारा निवनिहत सारणी या आारशिणयों या वतHमा� मूल्य के अ�ुसार $ेखा अधिधकारी द्वारा �वीकृत की जायें। इस नि�यम के प्रयोज�, के लि$ए धिचनिकत्सीय की आयु माम$े में ऐसी आयु मा�ी जायेगी जो वा�तनिवक आयु से कम �हीं है, जैसा निक प्रमाशिणत कर�े वा$े धिचनिकत्सीय प्राधिधकारी नि��pश �ें।।

¶84

नि{र भी नि�यम-7 के उप-नि�यम (1) परन्तुक के अन्तगHत आ�े वा$े माम$ों में अथाHत् ऐसे राशिशकरण के माम$े में, जिजसमें धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा आवश्यक �हीं है, $ेखा अधिधकारी से राशिशकरण करा�े पर �ेय एकमुश्त ध�राशिश पर रिरपोटH माँग�ा आवश्यक �हीं होगा। उक्त ध�राशिश की गण�ा राशिशकरण �वीकृत कर�े के लि$ए सक्षम प्राधिधकारी द्वारा अप�े �तर पर ऊपर नि�र्दि�ष्ट वतHमा� मूल्य की सारिरणी या सारिरशिणयों और निवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाH$याध्यक्ष द्वारा सभी प्रकार से पूणH आवे��-पत्र की प्रानि} के नि��ांक के पश्चात् पड़�े वा$े अग$े जन्म के नि��ांक को पेंश�भोगी की आयु के अ�ुसार की जायेगी। $ेखाधिधकारी उक्त प्राधिधकारी से �वीकृधित आ�ेश प्रा} कर�े के पश्चात् सम्बद्ध कोषागार को भुगता� के लि$ए प्राधिधकार जारी कर�े के पूवH राशिशकरण के मूल्य की गण�ा की शुद्धता की जाँच करेगा और यह भी �ेखेगा नि€ राशिशकृत भाग पेंश� के '[40%] से अधिधक' � हो।

¶85

11 of 17

¶86

ऐसे माम$ों में, जिज�में आवे��-पत्र राज्य सरकार को नि�यम 6 के खण्ड (क) के अधी� राशिशकरण �वीकृत कर�े के लि$ए सशक्त प्राधिधकारी को सम्बोधिधत हो, एकमुश्त ध�राशिश रुपयों में �ेय होगी। ------- एकमुश्त ध�राशिश के सपरिरवतH� के लि$ए, जहाँ सपरिरवतH� का प्रश्न उत्पG हो, निवनि�यम �र ऐसी �र होगी जो नि�यम-10 में उजि‡लिखत नि��ांक पर $ागू हों।

¶87

(1) नि�यम 7 के उप-नि�यम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी� आ�े वा$े माम$ों को छोड़कर, राशिशकरण, जब �वीकृत हो जाये, आ�ेश में निवनि�र्दि�ष्ट निकये जा�ें वा$े नि��ांक से, जो साधारणतया आ�ेश के नि��ांक से पन्द्रह नि�� पश्चात् का नि��ांक होगा प्रभावी होगा और सम�त गण�ा उस नि��ांक के नि��pश से की जायेगी।

¶88

निटप्पणी-निवशेष माम$ों में �वीकृधित प्राधिधकारी इस नि�यम में उजि‡लिखत नि��ांक से पूवH के निकसी नि��ांक से, निकन्तु यह �वीकृत आ�ेश के नि��ांक से पूवH का �हीं होगा, राशिशकरण की अ�ुमधित �े सकता है। तब सम�त गण�ा ऐसे पूवHवतR नि��ांक से की जायेगी।

¶89

(2) नि�यम 7 के उप-नि�यम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी� माम$ों में, अथाHत् निब�ा धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा के पेंश� के राशिशकरण के माम$ों में राशिशकरण उस नि��ांक से प्रभावी होगा जब सभी प्रकार से पूणH आवे��-पत्र निवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाH$याध्यक्ष के पास पहुँचे और सम�त गण�ा उस नि��ांक के नि��pश से और नि�यम-8 के अ�ुसार की जायेगी।

¶90

(1) नि�यम 7 के उप-नि�यम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी� माम$ों को छोड़कर पेंश�भोगी यनि� वह ऐसा चाहे, यथास्मि�थधित, राज्य सरकार या राशिशकरण �वीकृत कर�े के लि$ए सशक्त प्राधिधकारी या भारत के उच्चायुक्त को लि$लिखत �ोनिटस द्वारा, जिजससे निक वह उस नि��ांक के जब राशिशकरण अस्मिन्तम हो जाये, पूवH उक्त प्राधिधकारी के पास पहुँचे, अप�े आवे��-पत्र को वापस $े सकता है।

¶91

(2) यनि� वह खण्ड (1) में निवनि�र्दि�ष्ट अवधिध के भीतर अप�ा आवे�� वापस �हीं $ेता तो राशिशकरण अस्मिन्तम हो जायेगा, पेंश� के राशिशकृत भाग को प्रा} कर�े का अधिधकार समा} हो जायेगा और राशिशकृत मूल्य को प्रा} प्रा} कर�े का हक उस धितशिथ से प्रोद् भूत होगा, जिजससे राशिशकरण प्रभावी हों। राशिशकृत मूल्य का भुगता�, , , सथासम्भव उस धितशिथ स निकया जाये गा जब से राशिशकरण प्रभावी होे , निकन्तु वा�तनिवक भुगता� की धितशिथ चाह जो होे स�त्त ध�राशिश तथा पं ंश� परे , , प्रभाव �हीं होगा मा�ों राशिशकृत मूल्य उस धितशिथ को अ�ा निकया गया था जिजसको राशिशकरण अस्मिन्तम हो गया था। यनि� पेंश� का राशिशकृत भाग उस धितशिथ के बा� आहरिरत निकया गया है जिजस पर राशिशकरण आत्यस्मिन्तक हो जाता है, तो आहरिरत ध�राशिश को राशिशकरण में सं�ेय ध�राशिश में कम कर लि$या जाएगा।

¶92

'[(3) नि�यम-7 के उप-नि�यम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी� आ�े वा$े माम$े में, पेंश�भोगी को अप�ा आवे��-पत्र वापस $े�े का हक �हीं होगा और राशिशकरण उस नि��ांक को अस्मिन्तम हुआ समझा जोयगा जब राशिशकरण के लि$ये आवे��पत्र, जो सभी प्रकार से पूणH हो, निवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाH$याध्यक्ष को प्रा} हो जाये।

¶93

राशिशकरण को जिजसके लि$ए एक बार आवे�� निकया गया था, �वीकृत निकया गया था तथा प्रभावी निकया गया था, को निवखस्मिण्डत �हीं निकया जा सकता,

¶94

12 of 17

¶95

अथाHत् राशिशकृत पेंश� के भाग को उसके पंजीकृत भाग के प्रधित�ाय पर प्रत्यावर् त ित �ही निकया जा सकता।

¶96

[13. यनि� पेंश�भोगी की मृत्यु राशिशकरण अस्मिन्तम हो जा�े के नि��ांक या उसके पश्चात् निकन्तु राशिशकरण का मूल्य प्रा} कर�े के पूवH हो आये, तो इस मूल्य का भुगता� उसके निवधिधक उत्तराधिधकारी को निकया जायेगा। निटप्पणी-नि�यम-7 के उप-नि�यम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी� आ�े वा$े निब�ा धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा के राशिशकरण के माम$ों में, राशिशकरण उस नि��ांक को अस्मिन्तम हो जाता है जब उसका पूणH आवे��-पत्र निवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाHल्याध्यक्ष द्वारा प्रा} हो जाये। यनि� ऐसे माम$े में, पेंश�भोगी की मृत्यु राशिशकृत मूल्य प्रा} कर�े के पूवH उक्त नि��ांक हो या उसके पश्चात् हो जाये तो इस मूल्य का भुगता� उसके निवधिधक उत्तराधिधकारी को निकया जायेगा। ”

¶97

As referred above, an opportunity was granted to petitioners that they can committed their pension to get a lump sum amount as and when their respective pension was determined which could preferably be used for the above referred purposes (See Rule 4 of Rules 1941), though, none of petitioners have declared that they have used said amount for any of referred purpose and for any ancillary purpose. Though the Court is not entering into such dispute at this stage, however, it has to be noted that purpose of commutation was beneficiary for pensioners, so they could get a lump sum amount to use it for their benefit and for that some fixed amount to be deducted from their pension upto certain years which is now 15 years.

¶98

All the petitioners are guilty of approaching this Court at the very belated stage. The impugned notification is of year 2008 and they have approached this Court in the year 2024 i.e. after more than 16 years , probably being fence sitter and since some other High Courts have granted stay on further recovery when pensioners of their State approached to challenge number of years of recovery, which was later on

¶99

13 of 17

¶100

followed by this Court and co-ordinate Benches have passed certain interim orders.

¶101

the Supreme Court way back in the year 1987 in case of of "Common Cause" A Registered Society And Others Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 SCC (1) 142, has held that commutation of pension is an option and is exercised by choice and it is not mandatory or compulsory to seek commutation and being a policy matter cannot be subjected to judicial review except being mala fide or extremely arbitrary or contrary to Statute or irrational and held that:-

¶102

“ Commutation brings about certain advantages. The commuting pensioner gets a lump sum amount which ordinarily he would have received in course of a spread over period subject to his continuing to live. Two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of commutation--(1) availability of a lump sum amount, and (2) the risk factor. Many State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15 years rule. This Court would not be justified in disturbing the 15 years formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned ”

¶103

Similarly a Division Bench of High Court of New Delhi in Forum Of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union of India and another, AIRONLINE, 2019 DEL 508 , has considered similar argument and has negated it, with following observations, after taking note of recommendations of 6^th Pay Commission and other factors that :-

¶104

“ We would want most favourable terms for the pensioners, but there are restraints and the field experts and not the Court is the best judge to evaluate on different and somewhat conflicting factors that have to be taken into consideration. This is not to say that courts do not have jurisdiction and aggrieved pensioners/employees if they are unjustly treated cannot be granted relief, but for such interference the Court should come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in which makes the court's interference absolute to do justice.

¶105

14 of 17

¶106

Interference in such matter can result in creating all kinds of problems and cascading effects as these are highly complexed and difficult matters requiring balancing of various competing interests, which would to some extent include financial resources available ”

¶107

The Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra) has also taken note of above referred judgments and declined the objections of petitioners therein about fixing a period of 15 years to return commuted amount, therefore, the principle laid in Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra) is also applicable in present case and no circumstances exists to take a different view.

¶108

The impugned notification is being promulgated under the provisions of 1941 Rules, and has only prescribed the method of commutation amount and period thereof which is now 15 years and only on ground that government has received some more amount to the amount commuted way back 12 years to 15 years ago would itself not be a ground to quash the notification not being an irrational decision, even rate of interest if calculated would be on very low side.

¶109

The Court also takes note that in one of writ petitions, petitioners have mentioned that they have paid in terms of their commutation lump sum amount more than, ranging from 1 to 7 lac but it would itself not be a ground to quash any said notification since they have not only taken advantage of lump sum taken 12 or 15 years ago to spend on specific purposes as described in Rules 1941 on a certain undertaking and that they have not disclosed whether such amount was used for said purpose or any ancillary purpose. It is not a case

¶110

15 of 17

¶111

that due to return of commuted amount till 15 years, the State has enriched substantially.

¶112

The Court also takes note of another judgment passed by Supreme Court in R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, (1999) Supp. 1 SCR , wherein Common Cause (supra) was followed that “the decision in Common Cause (supra) has been understood in all subsequent judgments of this Court as 15 years from the date of commutation and we are in respectful agreement with the same. This neither prejudices the rights of any of the parties nor confers any undue advantage upon any party” and accordingly, impugned memorandum therein was upheld whereby it was decided that the commuted pension would be recovered for a period of 15 years. The Supreme Court has also followed Common Cause (supra) in Welfare Association Of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises Vs. Union of India and others, (1991) 2 SCC 265 as well as Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited Ex. Employees Association and others Vs. Chairman and Managing Director Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited Bombay and others, (1993) 3 SCALE 424. (also see : T.R. Single and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 2 ILR Punjab and Haryana 254, and Shila Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and converted 807 petitions decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 27.11.2024, wherein also policy of fixing 15 years for recovery of commuted part of pension was upheld)

¶113

The Court also takes note that commuted amount petitioners has range from 12 lakh to 14 lakh and installment

¶114

16 of 17

¶115

is between 11,000/- and 14,000/- per month, which is not exorbitant. The petitioners has also not disclosed their respective pension amount. It is also relevant to note that for purpose of other benefits, pension amount is considered without taking note of commuted amount and accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed and correspondently interim orders passed in all writ petitions are vacated.

¶116