AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None present for the applicant even in revised call. Shri Pramod Kumar Rai and Ms Seema Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, are present. The instant original application is being decided on merits taking recourse to the provision of Rule 15(1) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and after hearing learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
“i.This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Dy. Chief Engineer / Bridge, N.E. Railway Gorakhpur (Annexure No. A-1 to the compilation – I).
ii.To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to not made recovery from pension more than commutation amount Rs. 552604/- and excess amount which already recovered may refund to the applicant.
iii.To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to refund the excess recovered amount and restore full monthly pension.
iv.Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
v.Award the cost of the application to the Applicant.”
The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the respondents whereby his prayer for restoration of the commutation amount beyond the period of eleven years has been rejected.
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was initially appointed on 17.05.1982 on the post of Bridge Inspector Gr III, NE Railway and retired from service on 30.06.2012 as Senior Section Engineer from Varanasi Division of NE Railway. Applicant has contended that after retirement, he had applied for commutation of pension to which an amount of Rs 552604/- was sanctioned and a recovery of Rs 5620/- per month was fixed from the pension. Applicant has alleged that the installment of Rs 5620/- per month is being deducted even beyond the period of 10 years and 8 months and a total amount of Rs. 719360/- has been recovered which is illegal. Applicant has further claimed that his case is squarely covered by several judicial orders especially those wherein interim stay orders have been issued in favour of similarly situated persons. Specifically, the applicant has referred to the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in Civil Writ petition No 2490 of 2024 (Ram Saroop Jindal Vs State of Punjab & Others); order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 746 of 2024 titled Krishna Devi Vs Department of Telecommunication and order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1176 of 2024 (Civil Central Pensioners Welfare Society Vs M O Finance). By way of this OA, he seeks quashing of the order dated 13.06.2024 thereby directing the respondents to not make any recovery from pension more than commutation amount and excess amount recovered by refunded to him.
Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that applicant’s prayer for restoration of amount of the commutation of pension was rejected in pursuance of guidelines issued by Railway Board in which it is mentioned that commutation amount is restored after lapse of 15 years. Respondents have contended that the aforesaid option was exercised by the applicant himself and now at this belated stage, he is seeking alternation of the provision which is not possible as the same falls under the attribute of policy matter.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the OA.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents referring to his short counter reply, argued that the applicant was retired on 30.06.2012. After retirement, he had applied for commutation of pension under CCS Pension Rules and an amount of Rs 5,52,604/- was sanctioned on the deduction of Rs. 5,620/- per month for a period of 15 years. Applicant moved an application after completion of 11 years for restoration of amount of the pension which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 13.06.2024 in pursuance of guidelines issued by the Railway Board which states that commutation amount is restored after lapse of 15 years. Learned counsel further argued that similar controversy came up before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No 9426 of 2023 (Sheela Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and others) wherein the Hon’ble Court granted an interim order directing the respondents not to recover any amount towards commutation of pension after completion of 10 years retirement. Subsequently, series of writ petitions were filed by similarly situated persons before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana which were clubbed along with writ petition no 9426 of 2023 and similar interim order was also granted in the aforesaid writ petitions. Also, writ petition no 2490 of 2024 (Ram Saroop Jindal Vs State of Punjab and others) was also filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in which interim order was granted on 09.02.2024 staying the further recovery from the pension and the said writ petition was also connected along with leading writ petition no 9426 of 2023. Learned counsel further argued that the when the instant original application came up for consideration before this Tribunal on 13.11.2024, interim order was granted restraining the respondents from recovering / deducting any amount from the pension of the applicant. The said interim order was granted referring to the interim order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024. In the order dated 25.09.2024, reference of interim order dated 25.07.2024 granted by High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in writ petition no 5617 of 2024 was made. And the aforesaid interim order dated 25.07.2024 was granted by the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court relying upon the interim order dated 09.02.2024 granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in writ petition no 2490 of 2024 which has already been discussed above. Learned counsel further argued that the writ petition no 9426 of 2023 (Sheela Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and Others) was finally decided by means of order dated 27.11.2024 along with connected matters by which all writ petitions were dismissed holding therein that State is entitled to effect recoveries which were stayed by way of interim orders in the writ petitions. It was further argued that similar controversy came for consideration before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No 17819 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar Agrawal and others Vs Union of India and others) which was dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2025 considering various judgments passed by the Apex Court including the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sheela Devi and others (supra). Thus, learned counsel argued that even though interim protection was granted in this case on earlier occasion, since the case which was relied upon while granting interim protection has been finally dismissed by the higher courts, the same fate is liable to be attributed to the instant case and the instant OA is also liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the contentions and gone through the records.
When this case came up for hearing on 13.11.2024, interim order was granted restraining the respondents from recovering / deducting any amount from the pension of the applicant. A perusal of the said interim order reveals that it was granted referring to the interim order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024. The interim order dated 25.09.2024 in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024 was passed relying upon the interim order dated 25.07.2024 granted by High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in writ petition no 5617 of 2024, which was, in turn, passed relying upon the interim order dated 09.02.2024 granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in writ petition no 2490 of 2024. Now, the facts on record and a perusal of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No 9426 of 2023 titled Shila Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and Others (Annexed as SCR – 01 with Short Counter Reply) reveals that the said judgment was passed in a bunch of cases wherein Writ Petition No 2490 of 2024 was also clubbed. Since vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, CWP No 9426 of 2023 and all clubbed cases were dismissed, it would also imply that all the interim orders issued relying upon Writ Petition 2490 of 2024 or connected cases, have ceased to exist. Thus, since the interim protection in the instant case was granted on 13.11.2024 referring to and relying upon the aforesaid cases which now stand dismissed in view of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the instant original application is also liable to be dismissed accordingly. For the sake of clarity, the operative portion of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 is quoted herein below:
“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.
29.At this stage, we take note of the specific stand of the State as projected before us that it would be ready to examine the scheme/period of commutation while taking into consideration changes, if any, in underlying parameters and that an Expert Committee would be constituted in this respect which would be assisted by Recognized Expert Agency or Institution(s) which possess requisite knowledge and competence in assessing such matters. In this process the Committee would also invite and consider submission and representations in the matter from Associations of pensioners in the State.
30.Keeping in view the fair stand on the part of the State, we do not find any ground for issuance of any particular direction in this regard except to observe that in terms of the stand as projected before us, it is expected that necessary steps in this regard would be taken expeditiously by the State.
31.Keeping in view facts and circumstances as narrated and discussed in foregoing paras, all the 808 writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost. It is clarified that the State is entitled to effect recoveries which were stayed by way of interim orders in the writ petitions. Such recovery however be made in a staggered manner to obviate any hardship to the pensioners.”
Also, similar controversy was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 17819 of 2024 titled Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 48 Others Vs Union of India and Another wherein following order was passed:
“Clause 41(4) contains reference to a table, which indicates the commutation amount as also the manner of its calculation. The table is followed with certain notes, which also highlight the manner in which the computation is to be carried out for the purposes of commutation. Clause 2 of the note is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:
"(2)An employee who had commuted the admissible portion of pension is entitled to have the commuted portion of the pension restored after the expiry of a period of fifteen years from the date of commutation."
The provisions contained in the Regulations would clearly indicate that the retiring employee shall indicate a fraction of pension, which he desires to commute, and may indicate its maximum limit, which shall not be more than 1/3rd of the pension. In case, the fraction amount is in part of the rupee, such fraction of a rupee is to be ignored for the purposes of commutation. Note (2) is categorical and provides in specific terms that employees who have commuted the admissible portion of pension, is entitled to have the commuted portion of the pension restored after the expiry of 15 years from the date of commutation. The statutory scheme is, therefore, abundantly clear that an option is extended to the retiring employee concern to avail of the benefit of computation and such computation is on specific terms that on expiry of 15 years of such commutation, the original pension is to be restored.
The petitioners' contention that period for resumption of full pension be reduced from 15 years to 10 years only because the bank actually recovers the lumpsum amount paid on expiry of 10 years, is a misconceived argument. The Policy contained in the Regulations of 1995 extends an offer to the retiring employee to avail the benefit of commutation on specific terms. These terms clearly provide for restoration of pension only on expiry of 15 years. The petitioners otherwise do not say that the terms of the policy is unconstitutional or unconscionable.
Having accepted such offer, a binding contract comes into existence between the employee and the employer as per which the original pension is to be restored after 15 years. Having acquiesced to the commutation policy with open eyes, it is not open for the retiring employee to contend later that the period of restoration of full pension be reduced from 15 years to 10 years. Whether or not the lumpsum amount gets equalised on expiry of 10 years or 11 year is not decisive or material. What is material is the nature of obligation which enures upon the parties when the retiring employee accepts the provision of commutation of pension. The employee with his open eyes having availed the policy, cannot subsequently turn around or seek modification in its terms. The argument that the table or the figures were not adequately disclosed, is also not acceptable, inasmuch as the chart specifies the manner in which the commutation is to be fixed and the period after which the original pension is to be restored. In case, the employees had any misgivings about it, they could have sought appropriate clarification before accepting the offer. Once, the petitioners have acquiesced to the policy and accepted the offer, their subsequent attempt to resile or seek change in its computation would clearly be impermissible.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The view taken by us clearly finds support from the adjudication made by the Supreme Court in "Common Cause", A Registered Society And Others Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 142, R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India And Others, (1999) 8 SCC 106 as well the judgment of Delhi High Court in Forum Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union of India & Another, 2019 SCC Online Del 6610 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shila Devi Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 9426 of 2023.”
Furthermore, it is also pertinent to record here that the applicant has voluntarily exercised the option of availing the benefit of commutation of pension. So, having availed a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the applicant to raise the grievance as noted above, at this stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by him with open eyes. He is not entitled to seek recovery of the amount so deposited by him in accordance with the accepted terms and conditions. Further, allowing so would required alternation in the extant policy of the Government of India and therefore, no relief is admissible to the applicant.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis and strictly on the basis of case laws quoted and discussed above, the instant original application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.