Ready to examine pension commutation period, Punjab tells HC  

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed 808 writ petitions challenging the 15-year period for pension restoration following commutation, while taking note of the State’s stand that it was “ready to examine the scheme/period of commutation while taking into consideration changes, if any, in underlying parameters” through an expert committee. The court was informed that the committee would “invite and consider submission and representations in the matter from associations of pensioners in the State.”

The petitions, filed by retired Punjab government employees, had sought restoration of commuted pension after a shorter period of about 12 years, arguing that the existing 15-year period was arbitrary and unjustified.

The Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed: “Having availed of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the grievances, at this stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by them with open eyes.”

The court held that the petitioners’ claim lacked merit, adding: “The 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.”

The Bench asserted that matters related to commutation of pension were inherently complex, involving “vexed issues traversing diverse fields, which call for application of specialized expertise.” It reiterated that judicial interference in such matters would be warranted only in cases of “manifest and apparent arbitrariness,” which the petitioners failed to establish.

The Bench further observed that all the petitioners were retired employees who had voluntarily availed of the commutation benefit under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. Noting that some of their pensions already stood restored, the court stated that the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of commutation “with open eyes” and could not challenge the restoration period at this stage.

Declining to issue any specific directions, the court said: “It is expected that necessary steps in this regard would be taken expeditiously by the State.”

The court also vacated all interim orders staying recoveries and clarified: “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.”

Dismissing the petitions, the court concluded: “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 added: “All the 808 writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost.”