Radheshyam Shukla and 14 Others v. State of UP and 3 Others

AFR Reserved on : 19.02.2025 Delivered on : 06.03.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19031 of 2024 Petitioner :- Radheshyam Shukla And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nawal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Along with

¶1Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1169 of 2025 Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1207 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Kailash Narain Trigunayat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

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

¶4Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1372 of 2025 Petitioner :- Daroga Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1378 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hakim Singh Verma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1469 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Pandey And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16842 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramji Tripathi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17403 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Kuber Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Chandra Prakash Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 2 of 17

¶9Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17593 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sena Pati Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi,Shailesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶10Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18240 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶11Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18812 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Rai Respondent :- The State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶12Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18851 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kashiram Kushwaha And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶13Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19554 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ram Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶14Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20725 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Pandey And 5 Others 3 of 17 Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶15Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20824 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Tripathi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Shukla,Kamlendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶16Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20905 of 2024 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaya Tiwari,Satish Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶17Case :- WRIT - A No. - 273 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sant Lal Sharma And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶18Case :- WRIT - A No. - 703 of 2025 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Gupta And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶19Case :- WRIT - A No. - 719 of 2025 Petitioner :- Karuna Shankar Dubey And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others 4 of 17 Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Singh Som Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶20Case :- WRIT - A No. - 737 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sri Narayan Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶21Case :- WRIT - A No. - 767 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Srvastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadashiv Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶22Case :- WRIT - A No. - 791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Umrao And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chheda Lal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶23Case :- WRIT - A No. - 859 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hayatullah And 12 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Jee Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶24Case :- WRIT - A No. - 955 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 5 of 17

¶25Case :- WRIT - A No. - 970 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr Sudha Goyal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶26Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1240 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pitam Singh Yaduvanshi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶26Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1646 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rambabu Sharma And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶27Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1676 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶28Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19099 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramveer Singh Verma And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 6 of 17

¶1Heard S/Sri Nawal Kishor Mishra, Praveen Tiwari, Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Rajesh Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Rai, Ram Krishna Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Pashant Singh, Anurag Shukla, Satish Chandra Tiwari, Brijendra Kumar Srivastava, Suresh Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Vinod Kumar Singh, Chandra Bhan Gupta, Chheda Lal Verma, Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar Sharma and Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsels for petitioners, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. for State along with other connected writ petitions.

¶2This is bunch of writ petitions. All the petitioners have retired many years ago from the U.P. Government of Higher Education Department and are receiving pension and they have received benefits of a lump sum amount by Commutating their respective pension under Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941.

¶3The petitioners are aggrieved that their commutation amount has already recovered in about 10 to 12 years, however, by an Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2008, recovery from pension is directed to continue up to 15 years and as such the government has received much more amount than it was commuted. All the writ petitioners have challenged the said Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2008 on similar ground that according to their contention, the commutation amount was not loan, therefore, the exact amount could only be recovered and not more.

¶4Learned counsels for petitioners have also argued that there is no provision that by way of an Office Memorandum 7 of 17 dated 08.12.2008, number of years to recover commutation value could be determined upto 15 years, without any basis and otherwise also it was excessive and arbitrary.

¶5This Court has earlier asked the counsels for petitioners to go through a recent judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agrawal and 48 others versus Union of India and another, 2025:AHC:6439-DB, wherein similar arguments were rejected in regard to petitioners therein i.e. employees of Punjab National Bank. For reference the relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- "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 8 of 17 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. "

¶6In regard to above judgment, learned counsels for petitioners have submitted that in their case there was no contract or specific regulation in regard to period of 15 years for the purpose of return of commuted amount.

¶7Per contra, learned counsels for State have supported the impugned order and referred that issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court in 'Common Cause' A Registered Society and others Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 142.

¶8I have considered the above submission and perused the record.

¶9It is not under much dispute that all petitioners have got benefit of a lump sum amount after commutation of their respective pension at the time when they respectively attained the age of superannuation and pension was determined. Relevant Rules of Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941 are reproduced hereinafter :- "4. उक्त नियम-3 के प्रावधाों तथा एतास्मिम पश्चात निवनिर्दिष्ट शत के अध्यधी और प्रभाव को पूरा करे के लि$ए बजट प्रावधा अस्मितत्व के ……….भी, निकसी सरकारी सेवक जिजसको ये नियम $ागू होते है, को पेंश, जो जिसनिव$, नियमाव$ी के अधी उसको वीकृत निकया गया है, के 40% से अधिधक निकसी भाग के एकमुश्त अायगी के लि$ए राशिशकृत करे की अुमधित ी जा सकेगी, परन्तु

(क) निवेशू मुद्रा में है अतः अप्रासंनिगत है अतः मुनिद्रत हीं

(ख) जब पेंश रूपये में संेय हो, तब 9 of 17

(I) राणि शकरण‌के ‌बाद‌पमंशन‌का‌अवशेष‌वि कसी‌व् यवि क्त ‌के ‌मामलमं‌ममं‌20 रू ० प्र धि तमाह‌अब‌छठे‌वेतन‌आयोग‌की‌संसतुधि तयों ‌के ‌अनुसार‌रू ०‌2100/- से‌कम नहीं ‌होगा, तथा

(II) साधारणतया‌राणि शकृ त‌मूल् य‌नीचे‌वि ववि नर्दि दष्ट ‌उद् ेश् यों ‌ममं‌से‌एक‌या‌अधि धक ‌पर‌व् यय‌वि कया‌जाएग‌ा‌, ‌‌यथ‌ा‌-

(1) गृह‌यह‌गृहसथल‌का‌सधि ्मारण‌पुनरवि नमारण‌या‌क्र य

(2) ?ण‌का‌परि रसमापन

(3) बच् ो‌या‌आश्र ्तों ‌की‌णि श+्ष ा

(4) ‌वि ववाह‌सम् बन् धी‌व् यय‌‌, ‌‌और‌

(5) वि कसी‌व् यवसाय‌या‌उपक्र म‌को‌प्र ारम् भ‌करना। परन् तु‌यह‌और‌वि क‌पूवरवत?‌परन् तुक‌के ‌खण् ड‌क‌तथा‌ख‌के ‌प्र योजनों ‌के ‌लि लए पमंशन‌की‌धनराणि श‌की‌सगं णना‌करने‌ममं‌इसममं‌भारत‌या‌वि कसी‌अ?् य‌सरकार‌के राजसव‌से‌आवेदक‌को‌संदेय‌वि कसी‌अन् य‌सथायी‌पमंशन‌या‌पमंशनरो‌के ‌राणि शकृ त भाग‌को‌जोडा‌जा‌सके गा। वि टप् पणी- ऐसे‌सरकारी‌सेवक, जि जसे‌1 अप्र ैल, 1948 को‌या‌के ‌बाद‌भत? वि कया‌गया‌ह,ै तथा‌सरकारी‌सेवक, जो‌उस‌धि तणि थ‌के ‌पहले‌से‌सेवा‌ममं‌थे‌वि कन् तु जि जसने‌वि नयम‌16 के ‌प्र थम‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌40? राणि श‌अंशदायी‌भवि वष् य वि नधि ध‌पमंशन‌बीमा‌वि नयमावली, 1948 का‌चुनाव‌वि कया‌है, को‌इस‌वि नयम‌के अधीन‌तथा‌वि ववि हत‌पमंशन‌के ‌आधे‌से‌अनाधि धक‌वि कसी‌भाग‌के ‌बदले‌उस‌परन् तुक के ‌अधीन‌उसे‌संदेय‌वासतवि वक‌पमंशन‌के ‌40? से‌अनाधि धक‌वि कसी‌भाग‌की एकमुश् त‌अदायगी‌के ‌लि लए‌राणि शकृ त‌करने‌की‌अनुमधि त‌दी‌जा‌सके गी, यवि द‌वह उस‌वि नयमावली‌के ‌वि नयम‌19 के ‌प्र थम‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌अपने‌को‌वासतव‌ममं संदेय‌पमंशन‌को‌आहरि रत‌करने‌का‌चुनाव‌करता‌ह।ै

(2) उ०प्र ०‌उदारीकृ त‌पमंशन‌वि नयमावली, 1961 के ‌अध् यधईन, सरकारी सेवक‌के ‌मामले‌ममं, उसको‌वासतव‌ममं‌सदं ेय‌पेशन‌के ‌भाग, जि जसे‌एकमुश् त अदायगी‌के ‌लि लए‌राणि शकत‌वि कया‌जा‌सकता‌है, का‌वि नधार ण‌उक्त ‌वि नयमावली‌केृ वि नयम‌9 के ‌अनुसार‌वि कया‌जाएगा।

5.‌साधारणतया‌जि सवि वल‌सेवा‌वि ववि नयम‌के ‌अनुच् छेद‌353‌के ‌अधीन‌सवीकृ त अनुकम् पा‌भ्त ा‌के ‌राणि शकरण‌को‌अनुज्ञ ात‌वि कया‌जाएगा,‌वि कन् तु‌राज् य‌सरकार ऐसे‌भ्त ा‌के ‌राणि शकरण‌को‌सवीकृ त‌कर‌सके गी, ‌यवि द‌उसे‌समाधान‌है‌वि क राणि शकरण‌राणि शकरणकतार‌के ‌परि रवार‌के ‌सथायी‌लाभ‌के ‌लि लए‌होगा।

6.‌जब‌तक‌अन् यथा‌वि नदेश‌न‌वि दया‌जाये,‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌इस‌वि नयमावली‌के ‌भाग दो‌ममं‌वቕ्णि णत‌प्र वि क्र या‌के ‌अनुसार‌वि नम् नलि ललि खत‌को‌सम् बोधि धत‌वि कये‌जायमंगे--

(क) ‌ऐसे‌पमंशनभोवि गयों ‌के ‌मामले‌जो‌भारतीय‌कोषागारों ‌से‌अपनी‌पमंशन आहरि रत,‌करते‌हो‌या‌जो‌ऐसे‌कालोनी‌के ,‌जि जनका‌कोई‌लेखा‌महालेखाकार, के न् द्र ीय‌राजसव‌ममं‌हो, ‌वि नवासी‌होते‌हुए‌सथानीय‌कोषागारों ‌से‌अपनी‌पमंशन 10oofo17 आहरि रत‌करते‌हों , ‌यथास्मि सथधि त, ‌राज् य‌सरकार‌को‌या‌राणि शकरण‌कराने‌की सवीकृ धि त‌देने‌के ‌लि लए‌सशक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌को?‌और

(ख)‌समसत‌अन् य‌पमंशन‌भोवि गयों ‌के ‌मामले‌ममं,‌भारत‌के ‌उच् ायक्तु ‌को। ?[7.‌(1)‌कोई‌राणि शकरण‌तब‌तक‌सवीकृ त‌नहीं ‌वि कया‌जायेगा‌जब‌तक‌वि क ‌पमंशनभोगी‌ने‌स+्ष म‌धि चवि कत् सीय‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌से‌इस‌आशय‌का‌एक‌प्र माण‌‌-‌‌पत्र ‌ प्र सतुत‌नहीं ‌कर‌वि दया‌है‌वि क‌उसका‌शारीरि रक‌सवासथ् य‌तथा‌जीवन‌काल‌की प्र त् यासा‌ऐसी‌है‌जो‌राणि शकरण‌को‌न् यायोधि चत‌ठहराये।‌भारत‌ममं‌संदेय‌पमंशन‌के सम् बन् ध‌ममं‌राज् य‌सरकार‌या‌राणि शकरण‌सवीकतार‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌को‌भी‌हो,‌अपने सववि ववेक‌वि नणरय‌पर‌दसू रा‌धि चवि कत् सीय‌प्र माण-पत्र ‌प्र सतुत‌करने‌की‌अपे+्ष ा‌कर सके गी‌या‌धि चवि कत् सीय‌परि रषद् ‌के ‌सम+्ष ‌पमंशन‌भोगी‌को‌उपस्मि सथत‌होने‌का‌वि नदkश दे‌सके गी। [परन् तु‌धि चवि कत् सा‌परी+्ष ा‌और‌स+्ष म‌धि चवि कत् सा‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌से‌प्र माण-पत्र ‌प्र सतुत करना‌आवश् यक‌नहीं ‌होगा, ‌जहाए‌पमंशनभोगी, ‌जि जनममं‌यह‌पमंशन‌भोगी‌है‌जो सवेच् छा ‌ से, ‌अवि नवायर‌ रू प ‌ से ‌ या ‌ अशक्त ‌ होने ‌ पर ‌ सेवावि नवृ्त ‌ हआ ‌ हो .ु अपने/अपनी‌सेवावि नवधिृ त‌के ‌वि दनांक‌से‌या‌पमंशन‌भुगतान‌आदेश‌के ‌जारी‌होने‌के वि दनांक‌से,‌इसममं‌जो‌भी‌पf्च ातवतत?‌हो,‌एक‌वषर‌के ‌भीतर‌वि ववि हत‌प्र पत्र ‌?कक?‌ममं राणि शकरण‌के ‌लि लए‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌प्र सतुत‌कर।मं

(2)‌यवि द‌आवेदक‌अपनी‌धि चवि कत् सा‌परी+्ष ा‌के ‌सम् बन् ध‌ममं‌पूछे‌गये‌वि कसी‌लि ललि खत या‌मौलि खक‌प्र ्न ‌के ‌उ्त र‌ममं‌अपनी‌जानकारी‌ममं‌ऐसा‌कोई‌कथन‌करता‌है‌जि जसे ‌वि मथ् या‌पाया‌जाये‌या‌वि कसी‌तास्मि त् वक‌तथ् य‌को‌जानबूझ‌कर‌णि छपाता‌है‌त‌ो‌, यथास्मि सथधि त‌राज् य‌सरकार‌या‌राणि शकरण‌सवीकृ त‌करने‌के ‌लि लए‌सशक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी वासतवि वक‌भुगतान‌वि कये‌जाने‌के ‌पूवर‌वि कसी‌भी‌समय‌ऐसी‌सवीकृ धि त‌करे‌रद् ‌कर सकता‌ह‌ै और‌ऐसे‌वि कसी‌कथन‌या‌तथ् य‌के ‌णि छपाने‌को‌जि सवि वल‌सर्दि वस रगे ुलेशन् स‌के ‌अनुच् छेद‌351‌के ‌प्र योजनाथर‌गम् भीर‌कदाचार‌भी‌माना‌जायेगा। ?[8.‌राणि शकरण‌पर‌संदये ‌एकमुश् त‌धनराणि श‌वह‌धनराणि श‌होगी।‌जि जसे‌राष्ट ्रपधि त द्व ारा‌वि ववि हत‌सारणी‌या‌आारणि णयों ‌या‌वतरमान‌मल्ू य‌के ‌अनुसार‌लेखा‌अधि धकारी द्व ारा‌सवीकृ त‌की‌जायमं।‌इस‌वि नयम‌के ‌प्र योजन,‌के ‌लि लए‌धि चवि कत् सीय‌की‌आयु मामले‌ममं‌ऐसी‌आयु‌मानी‌जायेगी‌जो‌वासतवि वक‌आयु‌से‌कम‌नहीं ‌है,‌जैसा‌वि क प्र माणि णत‌करने‌वाले‌धि चवि कत् सीय‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌वि नदkश‌दमं।। वि फर‌भी‌वि नयम-7‌के ‌उप-वि नयम‌(1)‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अन् तगरत‌आने‌वाले मामलों ‌ममं‌अथारत्‌ऐसे‌राणि शकरण‌के ‌मामले‌ममं,‌जि जसममं‌धि चवि कत् सा‌परी+्ष ा‌आवश् यक नहीं ‌है,‌लेखा‌अधि धकारी‌से‌राणि शकरण‌कराने‌पर‌देय‌एकमुश् त‌धनराणि श‌पर‌रि रपोटर मागए ना‌आवश् यक‌नहीं ‌होगा।‌उक्त ‌धनराणि श‌की‌गणना‌राणि शकरण‌सवीकृ त‌करने‌के लि लए‌स+्ष म‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌द्व ारा‌अपने‌सतर‌पर‌ऊपर‌वि नर्दि दष्ट ‌वतरमान‌मूल् य‌की सारि रणी‌या‌सारि रणि णयों ‌और‌वि वभागाध् य+्ष /कायारलयाध् य+्ष ‌द्व ारा‌सभी‌प्र कार‌से‌पूणर आवेदन-पत्र ‌की‌प्र ावि ्‌के ‌वि दनांक‌के ‌पf्च ात्‌पड़ ने‌वाले‌अगले‌जन् म‌के ‌वि दनांक‌को पमंशनभोगी‌की‌आयु‌के ‌अनुसार‌की‌जायेगी।‌लेखाधि धकारी‌उक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌से सवीकृ धि त‌आदेश‌प्र ा्‌करने‌के ‌पf्च ात्‌सम् बद्ध ‌कोषागार‌को‌भुगतान‌के ‌लि लए प्र ाधि धकार‌जारी‌करने‌के ‌पूवर‌राणि शकरण‌के ‌मूल् य‌की‌गणना‌की‌शुद्ध ता‌की‌जाएच करगे ा‌और‌यह‌भी‌देखेगा‌वि ?‌राणि शकृ त‌भाग‌पमंशन‌के ‌?[40%]‌से‌अधि धक?‌न‌हो। 11oofo17

9.‌ऐसे‌मामलों ‌ममं,‌जि जनममं‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌राज् य‌सरकार‌को‌वि नयम‌6‌के ‌खण् ड

(क)‌के ‌अधीन‌राणि शकरण‌सवीकृ त‌करने‌के ‌लि लए‌सशक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌को‌सम् बोधि धत हो,‌एकमुश् त‌धनराणि श‌रु पयों ‌ममं‌दये ‌होगी।‌ -------‌एकमुश् त‌धनराणि श‌के सपरि रवतरन‌के ‌लि लए,‌जहाए‌सपरि रवतरन‌का‌प्र ्न ‌उत् प्‌हो,‌वि ववि नयम‌दर‌ऐसी‌दर होगी‌जो‌वि नयम-10‌ममं‌उजि ्लि खत‌वि दनांक‌पर‌लागू‌हों ।

10.‌(1)‌वि नयम‌7‌के ‌उप-वि नयम‌(1)‌के ‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌आने‌वाले‌मामलों को‌छोड़ कर,‌राणि शकरण,‌जब‌सवीकृ त‌हो‌जाये,‌आदेश‌ममं‌वि ववि नर्दि दष्ट ‌वि कये‌जानमं वाले‌वि दनांक‌से,‌जो‌साधारणतया‌आदेश‌के ‌वि दनांक‌से‌पन् द्र ह‌वि दन‌पf्च ात्‌का वि दनांक‌होगा‌प्र भावी‌होगा‌और‌समसत‌गणना‌उस‌वि दनांक‌के ‌वि नदkश‌से‌की जायेगी। वि टप् पणी-वि वशेष‌मामलों ‌ममं‌सवीकृ धि त‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌इस‌वि नयम‌ममं‌उजि ्लि खत‌वि दनांक‌से पूवर‌के ‌वि कसी‌वि दनांक‌से,‌वि कन् तु‌यह‌सवीकृ त‌आदेश‌के ‌वि दनांक‌से‌पूवर‌का‌नहीं होगा,‌राणि शकरण‌की‌अनमु धि त‌दे‌सकता‌ह।ै ‌तब‌समसत‌गणना‌ऐसे‌पूवरवत?‌वि दनांक से‌की‌जायेगी।

(2)‌वि नयम‌7‌के ‌उप-वि नयम‌(1)‌के ‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌मामलों ‌ममं,‌अथारत्‌वि बना धि चवि कत् सा‌परी+्ष ा‌के ‌पमंशन‌के ‌राणि शकरण‌के ‌मामलों ‌ममं‌राणि शकरण‌उस‌वि दनांक‌से प्र भावी‌होगा‌जब‌सभी‌प्र कार‌से‌पूणर‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌वि वभागाध् य+्ष /कायारलयाध् य+्ष के ‌पास‌पहुएचे‌और‌समसत‌गणना‌उस‌वि दनांक‌के ‌वि नदkश‌से‌और‌वि नयम-8‌के अनुसार‌की‌जायेगी।

11.‌(1) ‌वि नयम ‌7 ‌के ‌उप-वि नयम ‌(1) ‌के ‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌मामलों ‌को छोड़ कर‌पमंशनभोगी‌यवि द‌वह‌ऐसा‌चाहे,‌यथास्मि सथधि त,‌राज् य‌सरकार‌या‌राणि शकरण सवीकृ त‌करने‌के ‌लि लए‌सशक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌या‌भारत‌के ‌उच् ायक्तु ‌को‌लि ललि खत नोवि टस‌द्व ारा,‌जि जससे‌वि क‌वह‌उस‌वि दनांक‌के ‌जब‌राणि शकरण‌अस्मि न् तम‌हो‌जाये, पूवर‌उक्त ‌प्र ाधि धकारी‌के ‌पास‌पहुएचे,‌अपने‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌को‌वापस‌ले‌सकता‌ह।ै

(2)‌यवि द‌वह‌खण् ड‌(1)‌ममं‌वि ववि नर्दि दष्ट ‌अवधि ध‌के ‌भीतर‌अपना‌आवेदन‌वापस‌नहीं लेता‌तो‌राणि शकरण‌अस्मि न् तम‌हो‌जायेगा,‌पमंशन‌के ‌राणि शकत‌भाग‌को‌प्र ा्‌करने‌काृ अधि धकार‌समा्‌हो‌जायेगा‌और‌राणि शकृ त‌मल्ू य‌को‌प्र ा्‌प्र ा्‌करने‌का‌हक‌उस धि तणि थ‌से‌प्र ोद् ‌भूत‌होगा, ‌जि जससे‌राणि शकरण‌प्र भावी‌हों । ‌राणि शकृ त‌मल्ू य‌का ‌भुगतान‌‌,‌‌सथासम् भव‌‌,‌‌उस‌धि तणि थ‌से‌वि कया‌जायेगा‌जब‌से‌राणि शकरण‌प्र भावी‌हो‌‌, ‌वि कन् तु‌वासतवि वक‌भुगतान‌की‌धि तणि थ‌चाहे‌जो‌हो‌‌,‌‌संद्त ‌धनराणि श‌तथा‌पमंशन‌पर‌ ‌प्र भाव‌नहीं ‌होगा‌‌, ‌‌मानों ‌राणि शकृ त‌मूल् य‌उस‌धि तणि थ‌को‌अदा‌वि कया‌गया‌था‌, जि जसको‌राणि शकरण‌अस्मि न् तम‌हो‌गया‌था।‌यवि द‌पमंशन‌का‌राणि शकृ त‌भाग‌उस‌धि तणि थ के ‌बाद‌आहरि रत‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌जि जस‌पर‌राणि शकरण‌आत् यस्मि न् तक‌हो‌जाता‌है,‌तो आहरि रत‌धनराणि श‌को‌राणि शकरण‌ममं‌सदं ेय‌धनराणि श‌ममं‌कम‌कर‌लि लया‌जाएगा। ?[(3)‌वि नयम-7‌के ‌उप-वि नयम‌(1)‌के ‌परन् तुक‌के ‌अधीन‌आने‌वाले‌मामले‌ममं, पमंशनभोगी‌को‌अपना‌आवेदन-पत्र ‌वापस‌लेने‌का‌हक‌नहीं ‌होगा‌और‌राणि शकरण उस‌वि दनांक‌को‌अस्मि न् तम‌हआ‌समझा‌जोयगा‌जब‌राणि शकरण‌के ‌लि लये‌आवेदन-ु पत्र ,‌जो‌सभी‌प्र कार‌से‌पूणर‌हो,‌वि वभागाध् य+्ष /कायारलयाध् य+्ष ‌को‌प्र ा्‌हो‌जाये।

12.‌राणि शकरण‌को‌जि जसके ‌लि लए‌एक‌बार‌आवेदन‌वि कया‌गया‌था,‌सवीकृ त‌वि कया गया‌था‌तथा‌प्र भावी‌वि कया‌गया‌था,‌को‌वि वखस्मि ण् डत‌नहीं ‌वि कया‌जा‌सकता, 12oofo17 अथाHत् राशिशकृत पेंश के भाग को उसके पंजीकृत भाग के प्रधिताय पर प्रत्यावर्तितत ही निकया जा सकता। [13. यनि पेंशभोगी की मृत्यु राशिशकरण अस्मिन्तम हो जाे के निांक या उसके पश्चात् निकन्तु राशिशकरण का मूल्य प्रा} करे के पूवH हो आये, तो इस मूल्य का भुगता उसके निवधिधक उत्तराधिधकारी को निकया जायेगा। निटप्पणी-नियम-7 के उप-नियम (1) के परन्तुक के अधी आे वा$े निबा धिचनिकत्सा परीक्षा के राशिशकरण के माम$ों में, राशिशकरण उस निांक को अस्मिन्तम हो जाता है जब उसका पूणH आवे-पत्र निवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाHल्याध्यक्ष द्वारा प्रा} हो जाये। यनि ऐसे माम$े में, पेंशभोगी की मृत्यु राशिशकृत मूल्य प्रा} करे के पूवH उक्त निांक हो या उसके पश्चात् हो जाये तो इस मूल्य का भुगता उसके निवधिधक उत्तराधिधकारी को निकया जायेगा। "

¶10As referred above, an opportunity was granted to petitioners that they can committed their pension to get a lump sum amount as and when their respective pension was determined which could preferably be used for the above referred purposes (See Rule 4 of Rules 1941), though, none of petitioners have declared that they have used said amount for any of referred purpose and for any ancillary purpose. Though the Court is not entering into such dispute at this stage, however, it has to be noted that purpose of commutation was beneficiary for pensioners, so they could get a lump sum amount to use it for their benefit and for that some fixed amount to be deducted from their pension upto certain years which is now 15 years.

¶11All the petitioners are guilty of approaching this Court at the very belated stage. The impugned notification is of year 2008 and they have approached this Court in the year 2024 i.e. after more than 16 years , probably being fence sitter and since some other High Courts have granted stay on further recovery when pensioners of their State approached to challenge number of years of recovery, which was later on 13 of 17 followed by this Court and co-ordinate Benches have passed certain interim orders.

¶12the Supreme Court way back in the year 1987 in case of of "Common Cause" A Registered Society And Others Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 SCC (1) 142, has held that commutation of pension is an option and is exercised by choice and it is not mandatory or compulsory to seek commutation and being a policy matter cannot be subjected to judicial review except being mala fide or extremely arbitrary or contrary to Statute or irrational and held that:- "Commutation brings about certain advantages. The commuting pensioner gets a lump sum amount which ordinarily he would have received in course of a spread over period subject to his continuing to live. Two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of commutation--(1) availability of a lump sum amount, and (2) the risk factor. Many State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15 years rule. This Court would not be justified in disturbing the 15 years formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned"

¶13Similarly a Division Bench of High Court of New Delhi in Forum Of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union of India and another, AIRONLINE, 2019 DEL 508, has considered similar argument and has negated it, with following observations, after taking note of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission and other factors that :- "We would want most favourable terms for the pensioners, but there are restraints and the field experts and not the Court is the best judge to evaluate on different and somewhat conflicting factors that have to be taken into consideration. This is not to say that courts do not have jurisdiction and aggrieved pensioners/employees if they are unjustly treated cannot be granted relief, but for such interference the Court should come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in which makes the court's interference absolute to do justice. 14 of 17 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"

¶14The Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra) has also taken note of above referred judgments and declined the objections of petitioners therein about fixing a period of 15 years to return commuted amount, therefore, the principle laid in Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra) is also applicable in present case and no circumstances exists to take a different view.

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

¶16The Court also takes note that in one of writ petitions, petitioners have mentioned that they have paid in terms of their commutation lump sum amount more than, ranging from 1 to 7 lac but it would itself not be a ground to quash any said notification since they have not only taken advantage of lump sum taken 12 or 15 years ago to spend on specific purposes as described in Rules 1941 on a certain undertaking and that they have not disclosed whether such amount was used for said purpose or any ancillary purpose. It is not a case 15 of 17 that due to return of commuted amount till 15 years, the State has enriched substantially.

¶17The Court also takes note of another judgment passed by Supreme Court in R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another,

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

¶18The Court also takes note that commuted amount petitioners has range from 12 lakh to 14 lakh and installment 16 of 17 is between 11,000/- and 14,000/- per month, which is not exorbitant. The petitioners has also not disclosed their respective pension amount. It is also relevant to note that for purpose of other benefits, pension amount is considered without taking note of commuted amount and accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed and correspondently interim orders passed in all writ petitions are vacated.

¶19A copy of this order be communicated to Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of U.P. at Lucknow.

¶20Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 06.03.2025 P. Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY] 17 of 17 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad