As per case facts, Pensioner-Petitioners, including retired government and paramilitary personnel, challenged the continued recovery of commuted pension for a fixed fifteen-year period under Rule 10A of the CCS Commutation ...
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 1 of 50
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 27.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 29.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 12781/2024, CM APPL. 53286/2024 and CM APPL.
17282/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
SUB TRILOK CHAND RETD NO. JC374073A & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 13535/2024
ASHOK KUMAR VOHRA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 736/2025 and CM APPL. 3642/2025
SOHAN SINGH NEGI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 825/2025 and CM APPL. 4069/2025
REWAT SINGH SHEKHAWAT AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 2 of 50
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 17005/2024
RETIRED RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION NORTHERN RAILWAY DELHI DIVISION
.....Petitioner
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 17877/2024
MAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 17721/2024 and CM APPL. 75372/2024
RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 55/2025 and CM APPL. 165/2025
INDIAN EX BORDERMEN MOVEMENT AND OTHERS
.....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 3 of 50
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 10593/2025, CM APPL. 43930/2025, CM APPL.
43931/2025 and CM APPL. 19278/2026
SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 19636/2025 and CM APPL. 82015/2025
PREM DUTT SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 19729/2025, CM APPL. 82365/2025, CM APPL.
12369/2026 and CM APPL. 19392/2026
CENTRAL CIVIL PENSIONERS FORUM & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 1015/2026, CM APPL. 4917/2026 and CM APPL.
4918/2026
HARBANS LAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 4 of 50
+ W.P.(C) 1035/2026, CM APPL. 5020/2026 and CM APPL.
5021/2026
RAMESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2267/2026, CM APPL. 10949/2026, CM APPL.
10950/2026 and CM APPL. 10951/2026
THE CSIR PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION &
ANR. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2643/2026, CM APPL. 12858/2026 and CM APPL.
12859/2026
CENTRAL CIVIL PENSIONERS FORUM & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2653/2026, CM APPL. 12933/2026 and CM APPL.
12934/2026
CENTRAL CIVIL PENSIONERS FORUM ACTING
THROUGH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 5 of 50
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2656/2026, CM APPL. 12940/2026 and CM APPL.
12941/2026
CENTRAL CIVIL PENSIONERS FORUM & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
+ W.P.(C) 2666/2026, CM APPL. 12982/2026 and CM APPL.
12983/2026
ICAR PENSIONERS FORUM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
Present:
For Petitioners:
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha
Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advs. with Maj.
Anish Muralidhar (Army) for UOI in W.P.(C) 12781/2024.
Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Mr. Ashish Azad, Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj,
Advs. in W.P.(C) 13535/2024.
Mr. Sahil Chandra, Mr. Jai Singh Saharan, Ms. Amrita Singh,
Ms. Vanshika Jaiswal, Mr. Arya Harsh, Advs. in W.P.(C)
736/2025 & W.P.(C) 825/2025.
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advs. in W.P.(C)
17005/2024 & W.P.(C) 17877/2024.
Ms. Sunita Singh, Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, Advs. in W.P.(C)
17721/2024.
Ms. Richa Ojha, Mr. A.K. Ojha, Advs. in W.P.(C) 55/2025.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash Tayal, Ms.
Ashu Tiwari, Mr. Pranava Rastogi, Advs. in W.P.(C)
10593/2025.
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 6 of 50
Mr. Siddharth, Adv. Mr. Harshit Manwani, Ms. Himanshi
Girdhar, Mr. Deepanshu Grover, Advs. in W.P.(C) 2267/2026.
Mr. Vidya Sagar, Mr. Amolak, Advs. in W.P.(C) 19729/2025,
W.P.(C) 2643/2026 & W.P.(C) 2666/2026.
For Respondents:
Mr. US Maurya, Mr. SS Maurya, Advs. for R-1 in W.P.(C)
12781/2024.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Vivek Nagar, GP
for UOI in W.P.(C) 13535/2024 & W.P.(C) 17005/2024.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Likivi K Jakhalu, Mr. Aman
Gahlot, Advs. for R-2 in W.P.(C) 13535/2024.
Mr Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms Usha Jamnal, Adv. in W.P.(C)
736/2025.
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv.
for UOI in W.P.(C) 825/2025.
Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law Officer, Insp. Athurv and Mr.
Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF in W.P.(C) 825/2025 & W.P.(C)
1035/2026.
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, SPC with Ms. Soumya Saxena, Ms. Nazma
Akhtar, Mr. Waseem, Ms. Madiha, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
17005/2024 & W.P.(C) 17877/2024.
Mr. Shubham Saigal, Mr. Siddharth Jain, Ms. Shruti Mishra,
Mr. Ashish Shukla, Ms. Bhavika Mehta, Advs. for R-2 & 3 in
W.P.(C) 17721/2024.
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha
Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advs. with Maj.
Anish Muralidhar (Army) for UOI in W.P.(C) 55/2025.
Ms. Ekta Chaudhary, SPC with Ms. Rushali Sikand, Mr.
Kamaldeep GP in W.P.(C) 10593/2025.
Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chetan Jadon GP with
Ms. Shivangi Rajawat, Ms. Upanita, Mr Shailendra Mishra,
Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 19636/2025.
Mr. Sai Manik Sud, SPC with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP with Mr.
Aryan Mishra, Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C) 19729/2025.
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC Mr. Saurabh Kumar Nagar, GP in
W.P.(C) 1015/2026.
Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar,
Adv. in W.P.(C) 1035/2026.
Ms. Shakun Sudha, SPC with Mr. Aditya Goel, GP with Ms.
Aashna Mehra, Ms. Vaishnavstuti, Advs. for R-1, 3, 4 & 5 in
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 7 of 50
W.P.(C) 2267/2026.
Mr. Suhail Malik, SPC with Ms. Rupali Sinha, GP with Mr.
Aqib Zaman, Adv. for R-1 to 4 in W.P.(C) 2643/2026.
Mr. Sai Manik Sud, SPC with Ms. Rupali Sinha, GP for UOI in
W.P.(C) 2653/2026 & W.P.(C) 2656/2026.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Shashwat, Adv. in W.P.(C)
2666/2026.
Mr. Suhail Malik, SPC with Mr. Rajat Gaur, GP with Mr. Aqib
Zaman, Adv. for R-1 to 6 in W.P.(C) 2666/2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The present batch of Writ Petitions raises a common challenge
to the continued recovery of the commuted portion of pension for a
uniform statutory period of fifteen years prescribed under Rule 10A of
the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981
[hereinafter referred to as „CCS Commutation Rules‟] and other
analogous pension laws, in the backdrop of successive revisions in
commutation factors following implementation of recommendations
of various Central Pay Commissions [hereinafter referred to as
„CPCs‟].
2. The connected Writ Petitions, though arising from different
procedural backgrounds, broadly fall into the following categories:
i. Writ Petitions arising out of orders passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
[hereinafter referred to as „CAT‟].
ii. Independent Writ Petitions instituted directly before this
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 8 of 50
Court by retired employees and pensioners‟ associations seeking
declaratory, constitutional and consequential reliefs concerning
the operation of Rule 10A of the CCS Commutation Rules;
iii. Proceedings arising from orders of specialised tribunals,
including W.P.(C) No. 12781/2024, wherein the Union of India
has questioned interim directions of the Armed Forces Tribunal
[hereinafter referred to as „AFT‟] restraining further recovery of
the commuted portion of pension.
3. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the
expression “Pensioner-Petitioners” shall hereinafter be used as a
compendious reference to the applicants before the aforesaid
Tribunals as well as those writ petitioners who have approached this
Court seeking pensionary or constitutional reliefs, unless the context
otherwise requires.
4. The Pensioner-Petitioners across these categories comprise
retired personnel of diverse establishments under the Union of India
and its instrumentalities, including Central Government departments,
paramilitary forces, autonomous research bodies such as the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research („ICAR‟) and Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research („CSIR‟), and other organisations governed by
pension schemes adopting or substantially mirroring the CCS
Commutation Rules.
5. Notwithstanding certain factual variations relating to service
conditions or forum of origin and the mathematical calculation of the
amount of pension commuted being recovered by the respective
employer, the underlying controversy in all matters is common,
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 9 of 50
namely, whether continuation of recovery of the commuted portion of
pension for a fixed period of fifteen years remains legally sustainable
despite successive revisions to actuarial commutation factors, which,
according to the Pensioner-Petitioners, have altered the financial
assumptions underlying the original restoration framework. This
contention principally arises from successive revisions in
commutation tables pursuant to CPCs recommendations, which,
according to the Pensioner-Petitioners, altered actuarial assumptions
underlying the original fifteen-year recovery period.
6. Since all these matters revolve around the same statutory
framework and raise interconnected constitutional and administrative
questions concerning commutation of pension, notwithstanding the
distinct service frameworks governing certain categories of Pensioner-
Petitioners, they have been heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
7. In order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective,
it becomes necessary to notice the relevant statutory framework,
historical evolution of the commutation scheme, and the factual
background giving rise to the present batch of Writ Petitions.
8. The CCS Commutation Rules were framed to enable a retiring
Government servant to commute a specified portion of pension into a
lump-sum payment, calculated on the basis of actuarial commutation
factors determined with reference to age at retirement.
9. Under the commutation scheme, a pensioner opting for
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 10 of 50
commutation receives, at the time of retirement, a lump-sum amount
representing the capitalised value of a portion of pension, whereafter
the corresponding commuted portion is deducted from the monthly
pension for a prescribed period, upon completion of which the full
pension stands restored.
10. Originally, the commutation factors and the period governing
restoration of pension were evolved on actuarial assumptions relating
to life expectancy, interest rates and financial equivalence between the
lump-sum payment and the deferred pensionary benefit. Over time,
successive CPCs introduced revisions in pensionary benefits,
including periodic revision of commutation tables and actuarial factors
governing calculation of the commuted value of pension. Such
revisions were intended to reflect changing economic conditions,
demographic trends and revised longevity assumptions.
11. Following implementation of successive CPC
recommendations, while commutation tables determining the lump-
sum payable on commutation underwent revision from time to time,
the period prescribed for restoration of pension continued to remain
uniformly fixed at fifteen years under Rule 10A of the CCS
Commutation Rules. This continuity of the restoration period, despite
revisions in actuarial valuation tables, forms the foundational premise
underlying the constitutional challenge raised in the present batch.
12. Rule 10A of the CCS Commutation Rules, as presently
applicable, prescribes restoration of the commuted portion of pension
after completion of a uniform period of fifteen years from the date of
commutation, irrespective of the commutation factor applicable at the
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 11 of 50
time of retirement.
13. The Pensioner-Petitioners contend that revisions in
commutation factors recommended by successive CPCs have altered
the actuarial basis on which the original fifteen-year recovery period
was structured. It is their case that continuation of recovery for a fixed
duration, irrespective of the applicable commutation factor, results in
recovery exceeding the commuted value of originally paid.
14. Similar issues relating to restoration of commuted pension also
arose before various High Courts and administrative authorities across
the country. Certain interim judicial orders and administrative
decisions were relied upon by the Pensioner-Petitioners to contend
that continuation of recovery for a uniform period of fifteen years
required reconsideration in light of evolving actuarial assumptions and
financial conditions. These developments constitute the broader
judicial and administrative backdrop in which the present batch of
petitions came to be instituted.
15. The nature of proceedings instituted across the country varied.
In certain cases, Pensioner-Petitioners challenged the rejection of
representations before judicial fora. In others, constitutional
challenges were directly mounted against Rule 10A of the CCS
Commutation Rules itself. Interim protection against continued
recovery was granted in some matters, leading to further proceedings
questioning such interim orders.
16. The respective Tribunals, including the CAT, declined relief in
several matters, primarily holding that restoration of pension is
governed by the statutory prescription contained in Rule 10A of the
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 12 of 50
CCS Commutation Rules and that alteration of the recovery period
falls within the policy domain of the rule-making authority.
17. Aggrieved thereby, the affected Pensioner-Petitioners have
instituted the present Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the CAT
as well as the constitutional validity and continued operation of Rule
10A of the CCS Commutation Rules.
18. In W.P.(C) 12781/2024, interim directions were issued by the
AFT, restraining further recovery of the commuted portion of pension.
The Union of India has questioned such interim protection before this
Court in the said Writ Petition.
19. It is in the aforesaid factual and statutory backdrop that the
competing submissions concerning the legality of continued recovery
of commuted pension for a uniform period of fifteen years fall for
consideration.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record placed before the Court.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the Pensioner-Petitioners, though
represented by different advocates across the batch, advanced
substantially common submissions, which may be summarised as
follows:
I. Nature and Object of Pension Commutation:
i. Pension constitutes deferred wages and a vested statutory right
and not a bounty, forming part of the social-security framework
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 13 of 50
protecting retired employees.
ii. Commutation is intended to provide immediate financial
assistance at the time of retirement and cannot operate as a mechanism
for prolonged depletion of pensionary entitlement.
iii. The scheme, according to the Pensioner-Petitioners,
contemplates recovery only of the commuted value and not continued
reduction of pension beyond the period necessary for such recovery.
II. Excess Recovery and Unjust Enrichment:
iv. The commuted value, along with applicable interest
components, stands substantially recovered within a shorter actuarial
period.
v. Continuation of deductions for a fixed period of fifteen years
allegedly results in recovery exceeding the commuted amount,
amounting to unjust enrichment of the State.
III. Doctrine of Proportionality:
vi. Deductions must bear reasonable proportionality to the benefit
received under the commutation scheme.
vii. Reliance is placed on the principle that pensionary benefits
must broadly correspond to contributions and benefits flowing under
statutory schemes, as recognised in Mafatlal Group Staff Association
v. Regional Commissioner
1
.
viii. Continued deduction after recovery of the commuted value is
1
(1994) 4 SCC 58
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 14 of 50
alleged to impose a disproportionate burden upon pensioners,
particularly retired employees belonging to economically vulnerable
categories
IV. Challenge to the validity of the Impugned Rules:
ix. The continued application of a uniform fifteen-year restoration
period under the CCS Commutation framework is assailed as
arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution.
x. Expert bodies and governmental deliberations have themselves
recognised the need to reduce the restoration period, including
recommendations of the Department of Pension & Pensioners‟
Welfare and the Supplemental Report (March 2021) of the Second
National Judicial Pay Commission recommending restoration after
twelve years.
V. Comparative State Practice and Discrimination:
xi. The Pensioner-Petitioners rely upon pension regimes adopted
by certain State Governments, including Kerala and Gujarat, where
restoration periods of twelve or thirteen years have been implemented.
xii. Such differential treatment, it is urged, results in hostile
discrimination against Central Government and Defence pensioners
despite forming a homogeneous class of retirees.
VI. Violation of Supreme Court Principles Governing
Commutation:
xiii. Reliance is placed on the decision in Common Cause (supra),
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 15 of 50
wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that commutation principles
should not be guided by life-insurance models or purely interest-based
calculations.
xiv. Adoption of LIC-based commutation tables and fixation of
recovery on interest assumptions is alleged to be contrary to the spirit
of the said judgment.
VII. Absence of Actuarial Transparency:
xv. The Union and its instrumentalities are alleged to have failed to
place updated actuarial data, mortality tables or interest-rate studies
justifying continuation of the fifteen-year period despite changing
economic conditions.
xvi. Earlier judicial proceedings dismissing challenges on lack of
empirical material are relied upon to contend that reconsideration
remains open upon production of appropriate data.
VIII. Interim Judicial Protection and Ongoing Litigation:
xvii. Pensioner-Petitioners rely upon interim protections granted by
various Courts and Tribunals in similar matters, including orders
granting in-rem protection or staying recovery after completion of
twelve years, demonstrating continuing judicial concern regarding the
restoration period. Illustratively, reliance is placed upon M.D. Nazeer
Ahmed & Ors. v. The State of Telangana & Ors.
2
; Ravindra Dhar &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
3
and Hari N. Saste & Ors. v. Union of
2
W.P. No.32177/2024 (Telangana High Court)
3
W.P.(C) N0.2199/2024 (J&K HC)
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 16 of 50
India & Ors.
4
.
xviii. The judgments in FORIPSO (supra) and Shila Devi (supra) do
not dismiss the Writ Petition on merits but on the lack of information
which was required by the Court.
IX. No Waiver of Constitutional Rights:
xix. Opting for commutation does not amount to waiver of
constitutional protections, and pensioners retain the right to challenge
arbitrary pension conditions.
xx. There can be no estoppel against enforcement of Fundamental
Rights, relying upon Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
5
.
X. Changed Economic Circumstances:
xxi. The fifteen-year rule, evolved decades earlier, is argued to have
become outdated in light of revised financial assumptions, declining
interest rates, increased longevity and subsequent expert
recommendations advocating shorter restoration periods.
22. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India in the
respective matters forming part of the present batch, while addressing
substantially common issues, advanced the following submissions:
I. Statutory Framework Governing Commutation:
i. It is submitted that restoration of the commuted portion of
pension is governed strictly by the applicable statutory rules, including
4
O.A. No.860/2024 (CAT, Mumbai)
5
(1985) 3 SCC 545
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 17 of 50
Rule 10A of the CCS Commutation Rules and analogous provisions
contained in departmental pension rules.
ii. The said rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, possess statutory force and prescribe a uniform
period of fifteen years for restoration of the commuted portion of
pension.
iii. So long as the statutory rule remains operative, alteration of the
restoration period through judicial directions would amount to
rewriting the governing statutory framework.
II. Nature and Salient Features of the Commutation Scheme:
iv. Commutation of pension constitutes a welfare-oriented statutory
scheme designed to provide immediate financial liquidity to a retiring
employee at the threshold of retirement.
v. Commutation is purely voluntary in nature and a retiring
employee is under no obligation to commute any portion of pension
and may opt to draw full monthly pension without commutation.
vi. Under the applicable CCS Commutation Rules, a Central
Government employee may commute pension up to the prescribed
maximum limit (generally 40% of basic pension, and higher limits in
specified services), while retaining complete discretion to commute a
lesser portion or exercise the option subsequently after retirement.
vii. The commuted value of pension is calculated strictly in
accordance with the statutory Commutation Table appended to the
Rules, wherein the commutation factor is determined on the basis of
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 18 of 50
the age of the next birthday of the retiree, representing pension
deemed to have been received in advance.
viii. The commuted amount is released as a lump-sum advance and
enjoys statutory tax exemption under Section 10(10A) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, whereas the regular monthly pension continues to
remain taxable.
ix. In the event of death of the pensioner during the recovery
period, no recovery is effected from legal heirs or family members and
family pension becomes payable, thereby placing the entire mortality
risk upon the Government.
x. Pension commutation is neither a commercial loan nor a
recoverable debt transaction, and therefore principles governing
banking or financial lending arrangements are wholly inapplicable to
the statutory pension commutation scheme, which operates as a social
security measure. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in T.R. Singla
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
6
III. Voluntary Acceptance and Binding Nature of the Option:
xi. By opting for commutation, the employee consciously accepts
the statutory terms governing reduction and subsequent restoration of
pension.
xii. Having voluntarily availed the benefit with full knowledge of
its consequences, pensioners are estopped from subsequently seeking
alteration of the recovery period based on individual financial
6
MANU/PH/1161/2002
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 19 of 50
computations.
IV. Actuarial and Financial Basis of the Scheme:
xiii. The commutation scheme is founded upon actuarial valuation
involving specialised economic assessment. The determination of
commutation value incorporates multiple variables, including
mortality rates, life expectancy projections, prevailing interest rates,
actuarial risk, unsecured advance character of payment, and long-term
fiscal sustainability of pension liabilities.
xiv. The Government assumes a significant financial risk since the
lump-sum payment is never recoverable in the event of death of the
pensioner prior to expiry of the recovery period. On this basis, the
allegation of unjust enrichment is disputed.
xv. Interest assumptions underlying the commutation tables have
evolved over time (including revision pursuant to Office
Memorandum dated 02.09.2008), reflecting changing economic
conditions rather than a simple repayment model.
xvi. The revision of the Commutation Table pursuant to the
recommendations of the 6
th
CPC formed part of an integrated
restructuring of pay scales and pensionary benefits and cannot be
assessed in isolation by reference to selected figures alone.
xvii. The recovery period, therefore, does not represent mere
arithmetical reimbursement of principal but includes actuarial
balancing of interest loss, longevity risk, and administrative cost
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 20 of 50
factors.
V. Policy Nature of the Fifteen-Year Restoration Period:
xviii. Pension, commutation of pension and restoration thereof fall
within the domain of governmental policy, formulated on the basis of
recommendations of successive CPCs and expert actuarial evaluation.
xix. Successive CPCs examined the question of commutation and
restoration period:
The 5th CPC recommended increase of commutation
percentage to 40%, which was accepted, while the
recommendation to reduce restoration period to 12 years was
consciously not accepted by the Government;
The 6th CPC recommended retention of the 15-year restoration
period along with revised commutation table; and
The 7th CPC likewise recommended no alteration in the
restoration period, which position was accepted by the
Government.
xx. The consistent acceptance of expert recommendations retaining
the fifteen-year period demonstrates a sustained policy determination
rather than arbitrary executive action.
VI. Limited Scope of Judicial Review:
xxi. Learned counsel emphasise that executive policy decisions
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 21 of 50
relating to pay, pension and financial administration are amenable to
judicial review only on limited grounds, namely where the policy is
shown to be unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, beyond
delegated authority, or manifestly arbitrary.
xxii. In the absence of such infirmities, judicial interference with a
uniformly applicable pension policy would, according to the Union,
amount to re-engineering a fiscal framework best left to expert bodies
and the executive domain. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in
Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India
7
; R. Gandhi
v. Union of India & Anr.
8
; and Forum of Retired IPS Officers
(FORIPSO) v. Union of India
9
.
VII. Absence of Any Excess Recovery or Constitutional Violation:
xxiii. The Union disputes the allegation of unjust enrichment,
submitting that calculations relied upon by Pensioner-Petitioners
proceed on an oversimplified assumption treating commutation as a
recoverable loan transaction.
xxiv. According to the Union, what is characterised as “excess
recovery” represents actuarially embedded components such as
interest adjustment, mortality risk premium and fiscal balancing
inherent in the statutory scheme.
xxv. The rule operates uniformly upon all pensioners governed by
the respective service rules and therefore does not violate Articles 14,
16 or 21 of the Constitution of India.
7
(1987) 1 SCC 142
8
(1999) 8 SCC 106
9
2019 SCC OnLine Del 6610
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 22 of 50
VIII. Historical and Administrative Context:
xxvi. Prior to 01.04.1985, commuted pension was not restored during
the lifetime of the pensioner, and the introduction of restoration itself
reflects progressive liberalisation of pension policy.
xxvii. Changes in retirement age, revision of pay scales pursuant to
Pay Commission recommendations and upward revision of pension
benefits have simultaneously influenced commutation factors,
demonstrating continuous policy recalibration by expert bodies.
IX. Reliance on Judicial Precedents:
xxviii. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon
settled judicial principles mandating restraint in matters involving
economic policy and pensionary schemes founded upon actuarial and
financial considerations. Various High Courts have consistently
upheld the validity of the fifteen-year restoration period and declined
similar constitutional challenges, inter alia, in Shila Devi & Ors. v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
10
; Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors.
11
; Radheshyam Shukla & Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors.
12
; Thupakula Venkateshwar Rao & Ors. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
13
; Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Managing
Director & CEO, Bank of Baroda Corporate Centre Mumbai &
Ors.
14
; Kaushal Kishore Mishra & Ors. v. S.B.I. through its
Chairman, Corporate Centre Maharashtra & Ors.
15
; M.V.S.N.
10
2024:PHHC:157352-DB
11
Writ-A No.17819/2024 (Allahabad High Court)
12
2025:AHC 32012
13
W.P. No.24822/2024 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
14
Writ-A No.12905/2024
15
Writ-A No.4753/2025
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 23 of 50
Acharyulu & Ors. v. The State of Telangana
16
and Trilokchand
Dhaneriya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
17
X. Erroneous Reliance on Interim Orders:
xxix. The AFT, while passing the impugned order dated 24.07.2024
in W.P.(C) No. 12781/2024, erroneously relied upon certain interim
orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said interim
orders have since lost all precedential value, as the writ petitions along
with connected matters have subsequently been dismissed vide
judgment dated 27.11.2024, thereby rendering reliance upon such
interim directions legally unsustainable.
23. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the counsel
representing the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. Commutation of pension is a statutory facility framed in
exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It
enables a retiring government servant to receive, at the time of
retirement, a lump-sum capitalised value representing a portion of
future pension payable over time. The right to commute pension is
therefore not contractual, but exists solely within the contours of
statutory rules governing the pension regime.
25. Before examining rival submissions, it is necessary to notice
Rule 10-A of the CCS Commutation Rules. The same is reproduced
below for ready reference:
16
W.P. No.26042/2024 (Telangana HC)
17
2025 SCC OnLine MP 4710
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 24 of 50
“10-A. Restoration of commuted pension.- The commuted amount of
the pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the
date the reduction of pension on account of commutation becomes
operative in accordance with Rule 6:
Provided that, when the commutation amount was paid on more than
one occasion on account of upward revision of pension, the respective
commuted amount of the pension shall be restored on completion of
fifteen years from the respective date(s).”
26. A plain reading of Rule 10-A of the CCS Commutation Rules
reveals that restoration of the commuted portion occurs only after
expiry of fifteen years from the date on which reduction becomes
operative. Further, the Rule operates automatically and no discretion is
vested either in the administrative authorities or in the courts to vary
the period on individual considerations. The Rule thus establishes a
uniform statutory standard applicable to all similarly situated
pensioners.
27. A holistic reading of the CCS Commutation Rules, executive
instructions, and policy materials demonstrates that the commutation
scheme possesses the following essential characteristics:
i. The scheme is conceived as a social security and welfare
measure, intended to provide immediate financial liquidity at the
time of retirement when employees typically face major financial
obligations such as housing, medical needs, family
responsibilities or debt settlement.
ii. Participation in commutation is entirely voluntary. A
retiree may elect to draw full monthly pension without any
commutation whatsoever.
iii. Only a limited fraction of pension is permitted to be
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 25 of 50
commuted, ensuring continuity of assured monthly income and
preserving post-retirement financial security. A retiree can opt
for commutation of lower or lesser portion of their pension, i.e.,
any figure below 40% of the basic pension for Central
Government employees and upto 50% for Judicial Officers.
iv. The commuted amount is paid as a lump sum, which is
treated as tax exempt, while the residual monthly pension
remains taxable.
v. Upon death of the pensioner, no recovery is effected from
legal heirs, and family pension becomes payable independent of
the commutation already received.
28. The modern framework of pension commutation traces its
origin to the decision of the Supreme Court in Common Cause
(supra), wherein the issue of restoration of commuted pension was
examined upon consideration of expert material, actuarial inputs, and
governmental policy evaluation. The same has been heavily relied
upon by the learned counsel representing the parties. The relevant
extracts of the same are reproduced for ready reference:
“2. The Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981
are the appropriate rules in force so far as civilian employees under
the Government of India are concerned. A set of regulations is in
force in regard to defence personnel.
***
5. The petitioners have contended that the commuted portion out of
the pension is ordinarily recovered within about 12 years and,
therefore, there is no justification for fixing the period at 15 years.
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. Thus, two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of
commutation — (1) availability of a lump sum amount, and (2) the
risk factor. Again many of the State Governments have already
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 26 of 50
formulated schemes accepting the 15 year rule. In this background,
we do not think we would be justified in disturbing the 15-year
formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned.
***
9. In dealing with a matter of this nature, it is not appropriate to be
guided by the example of life insurance; equally unjust it would be
to adopt the interest basis. On the other hand, the conclusion should
be evolved by relating it to the “years-of-purchase” basis. An
addition of two years to the period necessary for the recovery on the
basis of years of purchase justifies the adoption of the 15-year rule.
That is more or less the basis which appears to be equitable. It may
be that this would give rise to an additional burden on the exchequer
but it would not be heavy and after all it would bring some relief to
those who have served the cause of the nation at great sacrifice. We
are, therefore, of the view that no separate period need be fixed for
the armed forces personnel and they should also be entitled to
restoration of the commuted portion of the pension on the expiry of 15
years as is conceded in the case of civil pensioners. And for them too,
the effective date should be from April 1, 1985.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29. A careful reading of the aforesaid extracts demonstrates that the
Supreme Court was directly confronted with the identical contention
urged before this Court, namely, that since the commuted portion of
pension is ordinarily recovered within approximately twelve years,
fixation of a fifteen-year restoration period was arbitrary. The Court
examined the nature of commutation, the advantages accruing to the
pensioner, the actuarial basis underlying the scheme and the financial
implications for the State.
30. The Supreme Court recognised two inherent advantages
flowing from commutation: first, the immediate availability of a lump-
sum amount which otherwise would have been received gradually
over the life span of the pensioner; and second, the embedded risk
factor, namely, that the State assumes the risk of premature death
without recovery of the commuted amount.
31. Rejecting the mathematical comparison suggested by the
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 27 of 50
Pensioner-Petitioners, the Supreme Court evolved the restoration
period on the “years-of-purchase” basis, holding that addition of two
years beyond the recovery period constituted an equitable balance
between pensioner welfare and fiscal responsibility. The Court thus
consciously approved the fifteen-year rule as a nationally uniform
standard, extending the same even to defence personnel.
32. The “years-of-purchase” basis referred to in Common Cause
(supra) is an actuarial concept. Under this methodology, restoration is
not determined by simple arithmetical recovery of the lump sum but
by maintaining actuarial equilibrium within the pension system. The
addition of a marginal buffer period, accepted by the Supreme Court
as equitable, accounts for longevity risk, financial uncertainty and
systemic sustainability. The said reasoning clearly supports the stand
of the Union of India that fixation of fifteen years forms part of an
integrated actuarial policy rather than a recoverable loan transaction. It
may also be noted that the judgment in Common Cause (supra) has
been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in R. Gandhi (supra).
33. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have further apprised
this Court that challenges identical to the present batch of Writ
Petitions have been examined by several High Courts across the
country. This Court has independently examined the judgments
rendered by various High Courts and finds that consistent judicial
opinion has emerged sustaining the validity of the fifteen-year
restoration period. The same assumes relevance while examining the
present constitutional challenge.
34. Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court in FORIPSO (supra)
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 28 of 50
considered an identical challenge to the commutation scheme. The
relevant extracts are reproduced for ready reference:
“12. Commutation of pension is an option and is exercised by
choice. It is not mandatory and compulsory for the government
servant to seek commutation. Additionally, the government servant
has the option to commute a portion of pension upto a maximum of
40% of pension. In other words, a retiree can opt for commutation of
lower or a lesser portion of his/her pension. A retiree need not ask for
commutation of pension immediately on the date of retirement as
option for commutation of pension can be made on a subsequent date.
Commutation of pension is by choice and voluntary.
***
20. Increase in life expectancy and its effect on commuted pension
cannot be viewed in isolation. Several factors, figures and the entire
pension provisions on the whole including cost to the exchequer have
to be taken into consideration. Commutation table can take into
consideration periodical increase in salary and better saving capacity
during service period due to increase and enhanced pay scales.
Courts would hesitate and not go by one formula and mathematical
calculations on assumption and precept that the formula would be
more fair, just and appropriate. There can be many formulas.
Calculations are complex, convoluted and a tricky task. Fixation of
payment of pension or commutation of pension, etc. are highly
difficult and cumbersome exercise which the Court would not like to
step into, undertake and even interfere unless there is complete
arbitrariness and discrimination that is ex-facie apparent. Courts on
perceived wisdom would not declare the table as flawed, acting and
preforming the role of an actuarial. Every government, including the
Central Government, has to take into consideration their available
resources and funds, for any increase and enhancement in pension
requires money which may well have to be diverted from other
schemes or would result in reduction of funds available for poor, the
marginalized and needy.
21. Pension, commutation of pension, etc. are policy matters, which
are examined and decided on the basis of recommendations of the
Pay Commissions by the authorities. No doubt, an executive order or
policy decision is not beyond the scope of judicial review but the
Courts do not go into the nitty gritty of the policy to substitute the
table by making various computations and calculations, which are
possible by different formulas or by applying a particular formula.
Broadly, policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review when
they are unconstitutional being de hors the provisions of the Act and
the Regulations, if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of
delegation and if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or
larger policy in matters of price fixation, pay fixation, etc. Courts
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 29 of 50
would not interfere unless formula or method adopted is per se and ex
facie irrational, arbitrary or can be struck down on the four grounds
mentioned above.
22. These aspects were kept in mind and highlighted by the Supreme
in Common Cause (supra) when they rejected the contention that the
commuted portion of pension would be ordinarily recovered within 12
years, and therefore, there was no justification for fixing period at 15
years. The Supreme Court observed that commutation brings about its
advantages as a lump sum amount is received, which amount would
have otherwise been paid over a period of time during a person's life-
time. The Supreme Court had listed out two clear advantages, namely,
availability of the lump sum as pension and the risk factor. We may
add another advantage as the commutation of pension is presently
untaxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. This considerably adds to
the monetary benefit accruing to the pensioners. Further, the rate of
return on the funds invested by the pensioners could vary and depends
upon market driven rate of interest. There are schemes for senior
citizens in which the rate of returns is high. Computations made by the
petitioner do not refer to the return by way of interest that the
pensioner would earn. In the aforesaid background the Supreme
Court had specifically rejected similar argument observing that while
fixing the commutation period, the Court should not be guided or go
by the example of life insurance. The Supreme Court had made the
following observations on the said aspects in Common
Cause (supra):—
“9. In dealing with a matter of this nature, it is not
appropriate to be guided by the example of life insurance;
equally unjust it would be to adopt the interest basis. On
the other hand, the conclusion should be evolved by
relating it to the “years-of-purchase” basis. An addition
of two years to the period necessary for the recovery on
the basis of years of purchase justifies the adoption of the
15-year rule. That is more or less the basis which appears
to be equitable. It may be that this would give rise to an
additional burden on the exchequer but it would not be
heavy and after all it would bring some relief to those who
have served the cause of the nation at great sacrifice. We
are, therefore, of the view that no separate period need be
fixed for the armed forces personnel and they should also
be entitled to restoration of the commuted portion of the
pension on the expiry of 15 years as is conceded in the
case of civil pensioners. And for them too, the effective
date should be from April 1, 1985.”
23. 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
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 30 of 50
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.
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. The judgment in FORIPSO (supra) clearly affirms the settled
legal position that the commutation of pension is purely voluntary,
wherein the pensioner retains absolute discretion regarding both the
quantum and the timing of such commutation. It is further observed
that the formulation and periodic revision of commutation tables are
tasks predicated upon complex actuarial evaluations and multifaceted
economic variables. Judicial intervention in such specialized fiscal
domains is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the
impugned action is found to be ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory, or in
manifest violation of constitutional safeguards.
36. The Division Bench expressly relied upon the reasoning in
Common Cause (supra) while rejecting the argument that recovery
within twelve years invalidates the fifteen-year restoration period. It
was further emphasised that pension economics involves balancing
competing public interests and financial resources of the State.
37. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment in FORIPSO
(supra) was carried in challenge before the Supreme Court by way of
SLP (C) No.8852/2019, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
15.04.2019, thereby lending finality to the view taken by this Court.
38. The judgment in FORIPSO (supra) was subsequently relied
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 31 of 50
upon by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shila Devi (supra)
while dismissing a large batch of 808 Writ Petitions raising identical
grievances regarding restoration of commuted pension. Relevant
extracts of the same are reproduced hereinbelow:
“3. Writ-petitioners in all the petitions are retired employees of the
State of Punjab having served its various departments. All of them
opted for commutation of their pension in terms of applicable
provisions of Chapter 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-
II (for short „PCS, Rules), Volume-II‟). Question raised for
consideration and adjudication is as to whether portion of pension
commuted by the pensioner should be restored after completion of
15 years from actual date of commutation as provided in Rule 11.1
(2) of PCS Rules, Volume-II or it should be restored after a lesser
period i.e., about 12 years.
***
22. As noted in the foregoing paras, 4
th
Punjab Pay Commission
recommended continuation of commutation of pension not exceeding
1/3
rd
of the amount of pension with the same restoration period and to
continue with existing commutation table and to adopt revised table
when notified for Central Government Employees. It is a matter of
record that Implementation Committee on considering
recommendations of the 4
th
Punjab Pay Commission on 26.05.1998,
recommended following of the Government of India Rules in toto i.e.,
commutation of pension to be allowed upto 40% of basic pension and
restoration after 15 years. It is in pursuance thereto that notification
dated 21.07.1998 was issued deciding that employees retiring on or
after 01.01.1996 will be permitted to commute pension equivalent to
40% of their basic pension and restoration would be permitted after
15 years from the actual date of commutation.
***
26. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the 7
th
Central Pay
Commission did not recommend any change in respect to
commutation of pension including the period of restoration. The 6
th
Punjab Pay Commission on considering the report of the 7
th
Central
Pay Commission as well as the representations of the Employees
Association did not find any reason to differ and did not recommend
any change. The observations and recommendations as reproduced in
affidavit dated 04.11.2024 read as under:-
“Observations and recommendations
8.11.3Employee Associations have represented that the
commuted pension needs to be restored after 12 years and
the commutation be allowed @ 40% of the pension as was
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 32 of 50
previously the case. Moreover, the existing rate of
commutation is 40% for Central Government pensioners.
8.11.4The 7th CPC has not recommended any change
either in maximum percentage of commutation or in the
period of restoration. It has in this context referred to the
Supreme Court judgment of 09.12.1986 wherein the
hon'ble court specifically observed that though the amount
is recovered in 12 years yet since there is a risk factor and
some of the States are restoring pension after 15 years, the
existing period of restoration should be retained.
8.11.5The Commission has no reason to differ and
recommends that the rate of commutation be raised to
40% with no change in the period of restoration of the
commuted amount."
27. It is a matter of record that all the petitioners before us are retired
employees who have admittedly availed of the benefit of commutation
of pension. Admittedly, pension of some of the employees also stands
restored. All the petitioners were in service at the time of issuance of
notification dated 21.07.1998. They never raised any objection to the
stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Having
availed of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not
open to the petitioners to raise the grievances as noted above, at this
stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by
them with open eyes. They are not entitled to seek recovery of the
amount so deposited by them in accordance with the accepted terms
and conditions.
28. In this factual matrix, the argument that it is a continuing cause of
action as it pertains to pension, is clearly unacceptable. There is no
question of any direction to the State to restore pension on expiry of
11.5 years or 12 years as prayed for or to refund the amount so
recovered. It is necessarily for the State to take a considered decision
thereon after delving into the complex questions and underlying
parameters which would be involved for assessment of the issues.
Admittedly, matters related to commutation of pension are complex
affairs involving vexed issues traversing diverse field which calls for
application of specialized expertise. It is a settled position that in
such matters the Court would venture only in case of manifest and
apparent arbitrariness. Learned counsel for petitioners were unable
to point out any material on record to indicate that the formula
adopted is per se and ex facie irrational or arbitrary which calls for
interference by this Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
39. From the aforesaid extracts, it becomes evident that the Punjab
and Haryana High Court noticed continued acceptance of the fifteen-
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 33 of 50
year period by successive CPCs and held that pensioners who
voluntarily exercised the option of commutation cannot subsequently
seek alteration of accepted terms. It rejected the plea of continuing
cause of action and emphasised that commutation policy involves
specialised economic assessment warranting limited judicial review.
40. At this stage, it becomes necessary to deal with the submission
advanced on behalf of the Pensioner-Petitioners that the judgments in
FORIPSO (supra) and Shila Devi (supra) did not constitute decisions
on merits and were allegedly rendered on account of absence of
complete factual material before the respective Courts.
41. The said contention cannot be accepted. A plain reading of both
judgments demonstrates that the constitutional challenge to the
fifteen-year restoration period was substantively examined in light of
actuarial principles, policy considerations governing pension schemes
and the binding precedent of Common Cause (supra). The
observations regarding availability of data or expert material were
made only in the context of emphasising judicial restraint in matters
involving specialised economic evaluation. The dismissal of
challenges was, therefore, not procedural or technical in nature but
rested upon a conscious judicial conclusion that fixation of the
restoration period forms part of a policy decision grounded in actuarial
assessment and does not warrant interference under Article 226 in the
absence of manifest arbitrariness.
42. Indeed, both judgments reaffirm that courts cannot substitute
actuarial wisdom with isolated mathematical calculations suggested by
individual pensioners. The attempt to characterise the said precedents
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 34 of 50
as non-merits decisions is, therefore, misconceived.
43. Furthermore, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thupakula
Venkateshwar Rao (supra) examined an analogous challenge to Rule
18 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules, 1944,
which prescribed an identical fifteen-year period for restoration of
pension. After an exhaustive survey of precedent including Common
Cause (supra) and FORIPSO (supra), the Court rejected the
challenge and upheld the validity of the said rule. Relevant extracts of
the same may be noticed below:
“1. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are all retired
Government Employees who formerly held various positions in the
State of Andhra Pradesh. They retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation of 58 years. The present batch of writ petitions
has been filed challenging the validity of Rule 18 of the Andhra
Pradesh Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules, 1944.
***
17. One of the issues that falls for our consideration is whether the
petitioners can challenge Rule 18 and question the prescribed 15 year
period for restoration of full pension inasmuch as the petitioners have
themselves derived benefit of the Rules by way of commutation of
pension.
In our opinion, the petitioners having derived the benefit of lump
sum payment on commutation of pension cannot be permitted to
now challenge the very Scheme under which they had obtained the
said benefit. The maxim qui approbat non reprobat, that is one who
approbates cannot reprobate, is a doctrine which is embodied in
English common law and is applied by Courts in this country. The
doctrine of approbate and reprobate which is a species of estoppel
clearly applies in the instant case.
***
20. In Shyam Telelink Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 165,
the Apex Court in paragraph 27 referred to the principle of estoppel
by acceptance of benefits as per the American jurisprudence and held:
“27. In America estoppel by acceptance of benefits is one
of the recognised situations that would prevent a party
from taking up inconsistent positions qua a contract or
transaction under which it has benefited. American
Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 28, pp. 677-80 discusses
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 35 of 50
“estoppel by acceptance of benefits” in the following
passage:
“Estoppel by the acceptance of benefits.— Estoppel is
frequently based upon the acceptance and retention, by
one having knowledge or notice of the facts, of benefits
from a transaction, contract, instrument, regulation which
he might have rejected or contested. This doctrine is
obviously a branch of the rule against assuming
inconsistent positions.
As a general principle, one who knowingly accepts the
benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny
the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or
conveyance.
This rule has to be applied to do equity and must not be
applied in such a manner as to violate the principles of
right and good conscience.”
21. Keeping in view the aforementioned principles, in our opinion, it
would not be open to the petitioners to challenge Rule 18 at all,
having received the benefits under the very Scheme which is now
sought to be questioned by them.
22. Notwithstanding the above, it can be noticed that a similar issue
came up for consideration before the Apex Court, in Common Cause
vs. Union of India, wherein, the Apex Court was considering certain
provisions of the commutation of pension Rules applicable to civilian
and defence pensioners on the ground that it permitted the Union of
India to recover more than what was paid to the petitioners upon
commutation. A direction was thus sought that an appropriate scheme
rationalizing the provisions relating to commutation be brought into
force.
In deference to the suggestions made by the Apex Court, Government
of India took a decision that recovery from pension payable every
month towards commuted value of pension would stop on completion
of 15 years from the date of retirement on superannuation or on
pensioner completing the age of 70 years, whichever was later.
The contention of the petitioners before the Supreme Court was that
the commuted portion of the pension was ordinarily recovered within
about 12 years and therefore there was no justification for fixing the
period at 15 years.
The Apex Court upon consideration of the arguments held:
“5. The petitioners have contended that the commuted
portion out of the pension is ordinarily recovered within
about 12 years and, therefore, there is no justification for
fixing the period at 15 years. Commutation brings about
certain advantages. The commuting pensioner gets a
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 36 of 50
lump-sum amount which ordinarily he would have
received in course of a spread over period subject to his
continuing to live. Thus, two advantages are certainly
forthcoming out of commutation — (1) availability of a
lump sum amount, and (2) the risk factor. Again many of
the State Governments have already formulated schemes
accepting the 15 year rule. In this background, we do not
think we would be justified in disturbing the 15-year
formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned.”
6. The age of superannuation used to be 55 until it was
raised to 58. It is not necessary to refer to the age of the
commuting pensioner when the benefit would be restored.
It is sufficient to indicate that on the expiry of fifteen years
from the period of retirement such restoration would take
place.
7. The respondent government has agreed that this benefit
should be extended with effect from April 1, 1986. The writ
applications were filed in 1983. The matter was placed on
board for hearing in February 1984. The Union
Government took some time for responding to the
suggestion of the court and that is how the disposal was
initially delayed. Thereafter, the hearing of the matter has
again been delayed on account of pressing business in the
court. In these circumstances, we think it just and
equitable that the benefit agreed to be extended in respect
of the commuted portion of the pension should be effective
from April 1, 1985 so far as the civilian employees are
concerned.”
23. A similar question arose before the Delhi High Court, in Forum
of Retired IPS Officers v. Union of India [2019 SCC OnLine Del
6610]. While dealing with a challenge to the 15-year restoration
period, it was held:
"20. Increase in life expectancy and its effect on commuted
pension cannot be viewed in isolation. Several factors,
figures and the entire pension provisions on the whole
including cost to the exchequer have to be taken into
consideration... Courts would hesitate and not go by one
formula and mathematical calculations on assumption and
precept that the formula would be more fair, just and
appropriate. There can be many formulas. Calculations
are complex, convoluted and a tricky task. Fixation of
payment of pension or commutation of pension, etc. are
highly difficult and cumbersome exercise which the Court
would not like to step into, undertake and even interfere
unless there is complete arbitrariness and discrimination
that is ex-facie apparent."
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 37 of 50
24. This Court also takes note of the fact that the risk factor involved
in commutation is a significant consideration. The State provides a
lump sum amount upfront, and in case of premature death of the
pensioner before the completion of the restoration period, the
unrecovered amount is foregone by the State. This aspect cannot be
overlooked.
25. This Court also notes that the commutation of pension provides
certain advantages to the pensioner, as highlighted by the Supreme
Court in Common Cause case, namely, the availability of a lump sum
amount and the risk factor.
Additionally, the commutation of pension is presently not taxed under
the Income Tax Act, 1961, which adds to the monetary benefit
accruing to the pensioners.
26. This Court finds merit in the submissions of the respondents that
the 15-year period is a consistent policy followed by the State
Government adopted and based on the Central Government's policy
and upheld by the Supreme Court in Common Cause case. Matters
relating to commutation of pension are policy matters, which are
examined and decided on the basis of recommendations of expert
bodies like the Pay Commissions.
27. Furthermore, the respondents have placed before us the
recommendations of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions which
recommended the 15 years period as the period for restoration of full
pension. Apart from this the 9th, 10th and 11th Pay Revision
Commissions constituted by the State Government also recommended
the continuation of the 15 year period for restoration of full pension.
28. The argument of the petitioners that the commuted portion is
recovered with interest within 11 years and 3 months is based on a
simplistic calculation that does not take into account various factors
such as mortality risk, and the overall financial implications for the
State. As observed by the Delhi High Court, such calculations are
complex, convoluted, and cannot be decided merely on mathematical
formulae.
***
30. While it is true that Courts in exercise of the power of judicial
review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the
executive yet equally settled is the principle that if the policy suffers
from unfairness, arbitrariness, or can be faulted on mala fides,
irrationality, or perversity, the same could render the policy
unconstitutional. Equally settled is the principle that if a policy
framed by the Government is based on a number of circumstances on
facts, law including constraints based on its resources, the Court
would dissuade itself from entering into the realm which belongs to
the executive. Reference in this regard can be made to the Apex Court
judgment in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 38 of 50
117.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
44. A similar challenge was thereafter considered by the Telangana
High Court in M.V.S.N. Acharyulu (supra) concerning Rule 18 of the
Telangana Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules, 1944. The Court,
after detailed consideration of the nature of commutation, the fiscal
implications involved and the limits of judicial review in economic
policy matters, declined interference and upheld the statutory
framework. The relevant extracts may be noticed hereinbelow:
“8. So far as the set of employees of the first category i.e. the
petitioners who have retired from the State Government service have
challenged the Rule 18 of the Telangana Civil Pensions
(Commutation) Rules, 1944 (for short, the „Rules, 1944‟) so far as the
said rule of fixing restoration of full pension only on completion of 15
years of recovery. There was also a prayer by the petitioners for a
direction to the respondents for reduction of the period of 15 years
prescribed under Rule 18 to 12 years. In addition, there was also a
prayer for a direction to the respondent to refund the excess amount of
pension recovered from the petitioners beyond the period of actual
recovery of commuted value along with interest.
***
34. Another contention was that since granting of pension and
commutation of pension is a welfare measure, the State Government
or the Banks, cannot be permitted to have undue enrichment by way of
recovery of the amount more than the commuted amount so far as the
Banks are concerned, and the commuted amount along with interest at
the prevailing bank rate so far as the Government is concerned. This
contention of the petitioners also may not be sustainable for the
simple reason that, at the first instance, granting of pension itself is a
welfare measure and within the welfare measure itself there was yet
another welfare measure brought in by the employer by way of
permitting commutation of pension. If that be so, under no
circumstances can be employer be expected to permit commutation of
pension without looking on the economics related to it i.e., the total
amount of money to be disbursed by way of commutation of pension in
a month or in a year, the total amount of funds to be generated for the
same, the mode of recovery etc. Therefore, as discussed earlier, we
are of the considered opinion that since all this relates to a fiscal
policy, the Courts cannot be permitted to substitute itself as a body to
determine what would be the most appropriate mode of recovery,
which otherwise is to be left for the experts in the field who advise the
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 39 of 50
Government and the banks in respect of the same.
35. What is still to be considered is the fact that when the Government
had initially introduced the commutation of pension, the recovery was
made life long without there being any fixed period of recovery. It is
only subsequently that the schemes stood modified and the recovery
was to be made for a fixed period of 15 years, which has been
uniformly adopted by practically every employer.
36. The judgment of the Common Cause (supra) relied upon by either
sides, when it is read, would clearly give an indication that nowhere
had the Hon‟ble Supreme Court restricted the employer or the
Government from making the recovery for 15 years. Neither did the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court make any observations of recovering only the
commuted amount paid to the pensioner or for that matter recovering
only the commuted amount along with interest.
37. In the given factual backdrop and the legal precedents referred
to in the preceding paragraphs, we are in full agreement and
endorse the views taken by the Delhi High Court as also the Punjab
and Haryana High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court
decided under if not identical on similar facts, whereby all the three
High Courts had dismissed the batch of writ petitions. As a
consequence, this Bench also does not find any substance in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, both,
while challenging the commutation of pension rules, so also the
Regulations dealing with the commutation of pension in the banking
sector, those which are under challenge in this batch of writ
petitions. This batch of writ petitions thus being devoid of merit,
deserve to be and are accordingly, dismissed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
45. Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal
(supra), Dan Bahadur Yadav (supra), Kaushal Kishore Mishra
(supra) and Radheshyam Shukla (supra), after considering Common
Cause (supra), FORIPSO (supra) and Shila Devi (supra), has
reiterated the same position and upheld the fifteen-year restoration
period, holding that pension commutation rules represent an integrated
economic policy and cannot be invalidated merely on the basis of
alternate financial calculations suggested by pensioners.
46. Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Trilokchand
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 40 of 50
Dhaneriya (supra), while examining Rule 10(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (as
amended), held that determination of commutation factors, rate
assumptions and the period for restoration of pension fall squarely
within the policy domain of the rule-making authority. Observing that
such matters involve complex fiscal considerations guided by expert
bodies, the Court declined judicial interference and dismissed a batch
of writ petitions.
47. Further, the Pensioner-Petitioners have contended that
successive CPCs had recommended reconsideration of the restoration
period and that reduction thereof ought to have followed as a logical
consequence of revision of pensionary benefits. The record, however,
indicates that although the 5
th
CPC examined the question of
restoration period, the Union of India, upon actuarial evaluation,
consciously declined alteration of the existing framework.
Significantly, both the 6
th
and 7
th
CPCs retained the fifteen-year
restoration period. Such consistent retention across multiple expert
bodies over decades evidences continuity of informed governmental
policy rather than arbitrary fixation.
48. The revised commutation tables introduced in the year 2008
formed part of a comprehensive restructuring of pay and pension
pursuant to implementation of revised pay scales. The enhancement of
salaries and pensions, revision of longevity assumptions, recalibration
of interest benchmarks and updated actuarial parameters constituted
an integrated fiscal exercise. The commutation tables, therefore,
cannot be examined in isolation divorced from the broader pension
reform framework. Additionally, recommendations or observations
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 41 of 50
made in departmental consultations, including those of the Department
of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare and the Supplemental Report
(March 2021) of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission
suggesting a shorter period, remain advisory in nature. In the absence
of their acceptance by the competent rule-making authority, such
proposals do not alter the binding statutory framework presently in
force.
49. A central misconception underlying the challenge lies in
treating pension commutation as analogous to a loan repayable
through instalments. The Court is unable to accept this foundational
premise. The commuted value of pension is not computed as recovery
of principal advanced to an individual pensioner but is determined
through actuarial tables taking into account multiple macro-economic
and demographic variables, including life expectancy trends, mortality
distribution across pension cohorts, discount rates, opportunity cost of
public funds, long-term pension liabilities of the State, and systemic
risk arising from premature death of pensioners.
50. The commutation scheme therefore does not operate as a
commercial borrowing transaction or lending arrangement. Rather, it
represents a statutorily structured redistribution of pension payments
across time, founded upon actuarial balancing applicable to a large
pension population.
51. The aforesaid understanding of pension commutation stands
authoritatively affirmed in T.R. Singla (supra), wherein the Punjab
and Haryana High Court recognised that payment of the commuted
portion of pension does not partake the character of a loan or
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 42 of 50
recoverable advance. The commutation amount constitutes a one-time
settlement based upon actuarial evaluation, under which the
Government assumes substantial financial risk. In the event of death
of the pensioner prior to expiry of the restoration period, no recovery
is effected from dependants and family pension becomes payable
notwithstanding the unrecovered commuted value. The Court
expressly acknowledged that, to account for such mortality risk and
systemic financial balancing, recovery during the prescribed period
may exceed a simplistic mathematical equivalence with the lump-sum
amount received. The judgment therefore negates the foundational
premise advanced by the Pensioner-Petitioners equating commutation
with repayment of a financial borrowing.
52. The fifteen-year restoration period must therefore be understood
as an actuarial equilibrium designed for the pension system as a whole
rather than a mathematical recovery period relatable to each individual
retiree. The contention that “recovery stands completed within twelve
years” proceeds on a simplified financial comparison ignoring
actuarial assumptions embedded in the statutory design and already
recognised in binding precedent.
53. Considerable emphasis was placed by the Pensioner-Petitioners
on reduction of commutation factors following implementation of the
6
th
CPC. It was urged that once revised tables altered commuted value
calculations, proportional reduction of restoration period necessarily
followed.
54. This submission cannot be accepted. Revision of commutation
factors was one component of a composite economic restructuring
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 43 of 50
involving simultaneous enhancement of pay scales, increase in
pension quantum, revised longevity projections and altered fiscal
assumptions. Policy elements forming part of an integrated economic
framework cannot be selectively extracted to claim corresponding
alteration of another component while ignoring the balancing factors
underlying the scheme.
55. Further, the reliance placed by the Pensioner-Petitioners on
Mafatlal Group (supra) is misplaced. The principle of broad
correspondence between contributions and benefits was articulated in
the context of a contributory social-security scheme and does not
require mathematical equivalence in individual cases. The judgment
itself emphasises evaluation on an overall actuarial basis rather than
isolated instances. The commutation framework operates on system-
wide actuarial balancing, and therefore the uniform fifteen-year
restoration period cannot be held disproportionate merely on
individual financial calculations.
56. It is well settled that courts exercise institutional restraint in
matters involving economic or fiscal policy framed by the State, as
consistently recognised in the judicial precedents noticed hereinabove
57. The same position stands reiterated in Rattan Chand v. Bhakra
Beas Management Board & Ors.
18
, wherein the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, while tracing the evolution of pension commutation and
restoration, held that fixation or revision of the commutation
framework, including the period of restoration, falls squarely within
the policy domain of the Executive Government acting upon expert
18
MANU/PH/1158/2002
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 44 of 50
evaluation such as Pay Commission recommendations. It was
emphasised that courts are not equipped to recalibrate actuarial
assumptions or redesign pension policy. Restoration of commuted
pension itself being a policy concession, judicial interference to alter
the prescribed restoration period is impermissible in the absence of
clear constitutional infirmity.
58. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that judicial review in
matters of economic policy is confined to examination of legislative
competence, violation of constitutional limitations, manifest
arbitrariness, or patent irrationality. Courts do not substitute judicially
preferred economic models for those evolved by expert bodies
possessing institutional competence and access to specialised data.
59. Pension commutation policy, involving actuarial projections
and long-term fiscal planning affecting a vast class of retirees,
squarely falls within this domain of policy deference. The revised
commutation tables introduced with effect from 02.09.2008 operate
prospectively within statutory authority and do not create enforceable
retrospective entitlements.
60. The fifteen-year restoration rule applies uniformly to all
pensioners governed by the relevant statutory framework. The
Pensioner-Petitioners have not demonstrated existence of any hostile
discrimination, artificial classification, or unequal treatment among
similarly situated pensioners.
61. Comparisons sought to be drawn with pension regimes adopted
by certain State Governments are misconceived. Separate rule-making
authorities functioning under distinct fiscal conditions are
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 45 of 50
constitutionally competent to adopt different pension models.
Variation between Central and State schemes does not, by itself,
attract Article 14 scrutiny.
62. There can be no dispute that pension constitutes a valuable
statutory right and forms an important component of social security
ensuring dignity in old age. However, regulation of pension through
valid statutory rules framed under Article 309 cannot be characterised
as deprivation of property.
63. Reduction in monthly pension during the commutation period
arises solely from voluntary exercise of a statutory option enabling
receipt of an immediate lump-sum benefit. The temporary reduction
thus operates strictly in accordance with law and cannot be equated
with unconstitutional deprivation.
64. At this stage, it becomes necessary to notice the doctrine of
manifest arbitrariness as explained by the Supreme Court in Shayara
Bano v. Union of India
19
. The relevant extract reads as under:
“101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121] stated that it was
settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of
the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. This
being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types
of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article
14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the
aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as
subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness,
therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously,
irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also,
when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the
19
(2017) 9 SCC 1
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 46 of 50
view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as
pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well
under Article 14.”
(Emphasis supplied)
65. The aforesaid exposition clarifies that a statutory rule or
subordinate legislation may be invalidated only where it is shown to
be capricious, irrational, lacking a discernible determining principle,
or so excessive and disproportionate that it bears no reasonable nexus
with the object sought to be achieved. The doctrine does not authorise
judicial review on the basis that another policy choice may appear
fairer or more beneficial. Courts examine only the constitutional
legitimacy of the measure and not the relative desirability of
competing fiscal or policy formulations, particularly in matters
involving economic regulation and expert evaluation.
66. Tested on the above parameters, the prescription of a uniform
fifteen-year restoration period cannot be characterised as manifestly
arbitrary. The rule is founded upon actuarial assessment recognised in
binding precedent, consistently retained by successive expert Pay
Commissions, and uniformly applicable to all pensioners without
discrimination. It reflects a calibrated balance between the immediate
lump-sum advantage conferred upon the pensioner and the fiscal
sustainability of the pension system. The provision therefore possesses
a clear determining principle and rational nexus with its objective, and
does not disclose caprice, irrationality or disproportionality so as to
attract invalidation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
67. The Pensioner-Petitioners correctly submit that fundamental
rights cannot be waived, a principle recognised in Olga Tellis (supra).
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 47 of 50
However, the doctrine of non-waiver does not imply that
consequences flowing from voluntary participation in a
constitutionally valid statutory scheme cease to operate.
68. When a retiree consciously elects to commute pension and
receive a substantial tax-free lump sum under clearly prescribed
statutory conditions, the legal consequences attached to that choice
remain operative so long as the underlying scheme is constitutionally
valid. The Pensioner-Petitioners cannot seek retention of the
advantage while selectively repudiating the accompanying statutory
terms.
69. Fixation of commutation value and restoration period involves
specialised economic judgment dependent upon actuarial science and
macro-fiscal assessment. Courts have consistently recognised,
including in FORIPSO (supra), that judicial alteration of pension
policy may generate cascading fiscal consequences impacting millions
of pensioners and destabilising long-term budgetary planning.
70. The present challenge essentially invites the Court to replace
actuarial policy with individual financial calculations advanced by the
Pensioner-Petitioners. Such substitution lies beyond permissible
judicial review in absence of demonstrated constitutional infirmity.
71. In W.P.(C) 12781/2024, the Petitioner-Union of India assails
the interim order passed by the AFT. The AFT granted interim
protection primarily relying upon interim directions issued in
proceedings before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is undisputed
that the Writ Petitions forming the basis of such reliance, including
Shila Devi (supra), have since been finally dismissed.
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 48 of 50
72. Interim orders, by their very nature, are provisional measures
founded upon prima facie consideration and do not constitute binding
precedent. Once the substantive challenges themselves stood rejected,
continuation of interim protection effectively suspending operation of
statutory rules ceased to possess any legal foundation.
73. The Pensioner-Petitioners have also relied upon interim
protections granted in certain proceedings before other High Courts
and Tribunals, including M.D. Nazeer (supra), Ravindra Dhar
(supra) and Hari N. Saste (supra), to contend that continued judicial
scrutiny itself evidences infirmity in the fifteen-year restoration
period. The submission cannot be accepted. Observations or
protections granted at an interlocutory stage neither determine
constitutional validity nor displace the presumption of legality
attaching to a statutory rule.
74. Judicial concern expressed pending adjudication cannot
substitute for an authoritative determination rendered after full
examination of the statutory framework, actuarial material and policy
considerations. The existence of interim relief in isolated proceedings,
therefore, does not justify suspension of a uniformly applicable
statutory scheme in the absence of a final declaration of
unconstitutionality.
CONCLUSION:
75. For the reasons recorded in the preceding discussion, this Court
finds that the challenge to Rule 10-A of the CCS Commutation Rules
and analogous provisions governing other pension regimes is devoid
of merit. The prescription of a uniform fifteen-year period for
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 49 of 50
restoration of the commuted portion of pension represents a conscious
policy determination founded upon actuarial evaluation, expert
recommendations and long-standing statutory practice, and does not
suffer from any constitutional infirmity warranting interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
76. Consequently, the impugned interim order dated 24.07.2024
passed by the AFT, which formed the subject matter of W.P.(C)
12781/2024 filed by the Union of India, cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside. W.P.(C) 12781/2024 is accordingly allowed.
77. All remaining writ petitions filed by the Pensioner-Petitioners
assailing Rule 10-A of the CCS Commutation Rules and analogous
provisions applicable to Railway, Defence, Banks and other pension
establishments are dismissed. The validity of the uniform fifteen-year
restoration period for commuted pension is upheld.
78. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, all interim orders,
protections or directions operating in favour of the Pensioner-
Petitioners in the present batch or in connected matters shall stand
vacated. However, considering that recovery of the commuted portion
remained stayed in certain cases during pendency of these
proceedings, it is directed, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, that the concerned employer shall not
recover the deferred amount in a lump sum. Instead, recovery shall
continue beyond the prescribed fifteen-year restoration period for the
exact duration corresponding to the period during which such interim
protection remained operative, so as to balance fiscal neutrality with
avoidance of undue hardship to pensioners.
W.P.(C) 12781/2024 and connected matters Page 50 of 50
79. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN , J.
MAY 29, 2026
s.godara/shah
Legal Notes
Add a Note....