Sh. Bhim Prakash Sharma & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

The present OA is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the continuance of the period of fifteen years prescribed under Rule 10-A of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, for restoration of the commuted portion of pension. The reliefs sought by the applicants are as follows :-

The case of the applicants, as presented by their counsel is that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 retired from All India Radio on 31.07.2020, 30.09.2011 and 01.04.2012 respectively. The applicants retired under the erstwhile CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and received pension under the applicable pension rules. The applicants have opted for commutation of pension up to the permissible extent of 40%. Their grievance is essentially against the continued recovery of the commuted portion of pension for fifteen years. According to them, the lump-sum amount paid to them towards commutation, together with the applicable interest, is recovered by the Government much earlier than fifteen years. The counsel contends that once the commuted value is recovered, there is no justification for continuing to deduct the commuted portion from their monthly pension for the remaining period. In support of his contention, he refers to the calculation made in respect of Applicant No.2. According to the calculation placed on record, the commuted value of Rs.6,49,555/- is recovered through the monthly reduction of pension in about 8.19 years. After taking into account the interest component, the applicants calculated the total period of recovery at approximately 10.552 years. On this basis, he contends that continuing the recovery for fifteen years resulted in recovery of an amount in excess of the amount advanced to the pensioner. He further relied upon the recommendations of various Pay Commissions. It is submitted that the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommends restoration of the commuted portion after twelve years. The applicants also refer to the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and other material concerning the commutation table, interest rates and mortality rates. According to him, the factors which were relevant when the period of restoration was fixed at fifteen years have materially changed over the years. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. Union of India - (1987) 1 SCC 142 and submits that the Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that the commuted value is ordinarily recovered within about twelve years and that the commutation scheme is required to be considered on the basis of the years of purchase. The counsel contends that in the changed circumstances, the Government ought to review the fifteen-year period. He further submits that the age of superannuation of Central Government employees has increased from 58 to 60 years and that there has been considerable improvement in life expectancy. He also contends that the mortality risk, which was one of the factors underlying the commutation formula, has substantially reduced. He also rely upon the fact that certain State Governments have reduced the period of restoration to twelve or thirteen years. Moreover, the Government continues to use the commutation table based upon the LIC 1994-96 mortality table and an interest rate of 8%, and that the table itself requires review in view of subsequent changes in mortality and interest rates. He therefore submits that the fifteen-year period has become arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate. The applicants have also placed reliance upon certain orders passed by other Benches of the Tribunal and by the Hon'ble High Courts, including the orders in O.A. No.860/2024 before the Mumbai Bench, O.A. No.1589/2024 before the Chennai Bench and W.P.(C) No.22753/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. On the strength of those orders, the applicants contend that recovery beyond twelve years ought not to continue. The applicants accordingly seek quashing of the fifteen-year period prescribed under Rule 10-A and a direction to the respondents to restore full pension as soon as the commuted value is recovered, or to adopt such other method as may prevent what according to them is excess recovery. They also seek refund of the amount already recovered from applicant Nos.2 and 3 beyond the period of eleven years, together with interest, and interim protection against further recovery from them.

During hearing, the counsel for the applicants handed across the Bar a copy of the order passed in a similar matter by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajendra Prasad & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. – W.P (C) No. 10597/2025 dated 23.07.2025 vide which the Hon’ble High Court granted stay on the recoveries from the petitioners therein. He also produced a copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 643/2015 dated 19.09.2025 – All India Judges Association vs. UOI & Ors. whereby notice was issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is an admitted position that no counter-affidavit/reply has been filed by the respondents in the present OA. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a copy of the judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.12781/2024 in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sub Trilok Chand Retd. No. JC374073A & Anr. and connected matters wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under :-

Learned counsel submits that the controversy raised in the present OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, whereby the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the validity of the fifteen-year restoration period prescribed under Rule 10-A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules and dismissed the challenges raised by the pensioners.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether this Tribunal can direct substitution of the period of fifteen years prescribed under Rule 10-A by a shorter period on the basis of the calculations and changed economic or actuarial circumstances relied upon by the applicants. Rule 10-A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 provides that the commuted amount of pension is to be restored on completion of fifteen years from the date on which reduction of pension on account of commutation becomes operative. The rule therefore prescribes a uniform period for restoration. The material placed before us shows that the fifteen-year period is an integral part of the statutory commutation scheme. We find that the challenge raised by the applicants cannot be considered in isolation from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. Union of India - (1987) 1 SCC 142. In that case also, the petitioners contended that the commuted portion was ordinarily recovered within about twelve years and that there was no justification for retaining the fifteen-year period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court nevertheless declined to disturb the fifteen-year formula applicable to civilian pensioners. The Court specifically took into consideration the advantages of commutation, namely availability of a lump sum and the risk factor, and held that restoration after fifteen years is just and equitable. Thus, the very argument which forms the foundation of the present OA, namely that the commuted amount is mathematically recoverable within a period shorter than fifteen years, has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not hold that restoration has to take place immediately upon mathematical recovery of the principal amount and interest. Rather, the Court approves the fifteen-year formula having regard to the overall nature of the commutation scheme. The reliance placed by the applicants upon the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission also does not advance their case to the extent claimed. It is true that the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended restoration after twelve years. The applicants themselves plead that the recommendation was not accepted by the Government. A recommendation of a Pay Commission, by itself, does not amend the statutory rule. Unless the competent authority accepts and implements such recommendation in accordance with law, the existing statutory provision continues to operate. Similarly, the fact that certain State Governments have adopted a shorter period cannot by itself render the Central Government's statutory rule invalid. Different Governments may frame pensionary schemes based on their own financial, actuarial and administrative considerations. The Tribunal cannot substitute the policy adopted by one Government for the policy embodied in the statutory rules of another. The commutation scheme is not merely a simple transaction of advancing a principal amount and recovering the same through monthly deductions. As noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the scheme also took into consideration the lump-sum advantage received by the pensioner and the risk factor.

We have also noticed that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has subsequently considered the very issue in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sub Trilok Chand (Retd.) & Anr., W.P.(C) No.12781/2024 and connected matters, decided on 29.05.2026. The Hon'ble High Court considered the challenge to the fifteen-year restoration period and upheld the validity of the uniform fifteen-year period prescribed for restoration of commuted pension. The writ petition filed by the Union of India is allowed and the interim order under challenge is set aside; the connected challenges to Rule 10-A and analogous provisions are dismissed. The aforesaid judgment is directly relevant to the controversy raised in the present OA. The foundation of the applicants' challenge is substantially the same that the commuted amount is recovered earlier, that actuarial and mortality conditions have changed, and that the period of fifteen years therefore requires reduction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after considering the challenge, does not find the uniform fifteen-year period constitutionally infirm. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (supra) and the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sub Trilok Chand (supra), we find no legal basis to grant the principal relief sought by the applicants, namely, to quash or read down the period of fifteen years prescribed under Rule 10-A. The applicants also seek refund of amounts allegedly recovered beyond eleven years and seek a direction to stop further recovery in respect of the applicants who have completed the said period. Once the challenge to Rule 10-A fails, these consequential reliefs cannot be granted. The recovery of the commuted portion in accordance with the statutory scheme cannot be treated as an illegal recovery merely because the applicants' own calculations indicate that the commuted amount, together with an assumed interest component, may have been recovered earlier.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present OA. The challenge to the fifteen-year restoration period prescribed under Rule 10-A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 fails. Consequently, the prayer for restoration of full pension before completion of fifteen years, refund of alleged excess recovery and stoppage of further recovery also cannot be granted. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.