1. Pension scheme option — Switch from contributory provident fund to pension — Challenge against denial of retrospective arrears from retirement date. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 906
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
The Reserve Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
M.T. Mani and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13962 of 2024
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yohannan I, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Mary Mathews, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan G, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Yohannan I, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Mary Mathews, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan G, AOR
The Court held that fixing a cut-off date for pension benefits based on financial constraints is a valid policy decision and not arbitrary. Additionally, an employee cannot selectively accept beneficial terms of a scheme while rejecting unfavorable ones, as this violates the principle against approbating and reprobating.
Headnote:(A) Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 - Employees governed by Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity Act, 1972 - Denial of pension benefits prior to 01.07.2020 deemed discriminatory by High Court, contradicted by previous circulars allowing pension arrears - Court clarified that options provided historically did not guarantee retrospective pension; eligibility for pension based on voluntary acceptance of terms (Paras 6, 13, 36).
(B) Administrative Circulars issuing options for pension subject to policy decisions related to financial implications are valid and lawful. (Paras 21, 26)
(C) Principle of approbate and reprobate established, preventing claims beyond agreed terms of pension scheme (Paras 37-39).
Facts of the case:
Respondent, an RBI employee since 1981, did not opt for pension upon multiple opportunities and retired in 2014; sought pension with arrears from retirement date after opting in 2020.
Findings of Court:
High Court's ruling to grant retrospective benefits of pension found unsustainable.
Issues: Whether denial of arrears of pension from the date of retirement was discriminatory; adherence to terms of pension scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that fixing the date for pension benefits was a valid administrative decision, affirming that retrospective claims are unsubstantiated given multiple prior options (Paras 34, 42).
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the prospective cut-off date for pension is arbitrary and discriminatory compared to previous schemes, or a valid policy decision based on financial liability. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 25 )
3. Policy decisions regarding cut-off dates based on financial constraints are generally valid; employees accepting a scheme cannot selectively reject unfavorable terms while claiming benefits. (Para 21 , 24 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 )
4. Fixation of a cut-off date for benefits based on financial constraints is a valid policy decision and not arbitrary unless blatantly capricious. (Para 35 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Order dismissing the writ petition restored. (Para 42 )
6. Can an employer fix a prospective cut-off date for pension benefits based on financial constraints?
Yes. Fixing a cut-off date based on economic conditions, financial constraints, or administrative exigencies is a valid policy decision. Such dates are not arbitrary or discriminatory unless they lead to blatantly capricious or outrageous results, and courts should exercise judicial restraint in such matters. (Para 21 , 34 , 35 )
7. Can an employee accept the benefits of a scheme while challenging its unfavorable conditions?
No. Under the principle of approbate and reprobate, an employee who voluntarily accepts a scheme as a package deal cannot selectively accept beneficial terms and reject unfavorable ones to obtain a retrospective benefit contrary to the agreed terms. (Para 17 , 20 , 37 , 39 )
8. Are subsequent administrative circulars offering options for benefits bound by the terms of previous circulars?
No. Each administrative circular can be an independent scheme with its own specific terms, eligibility criteria, and financial implications. The terms of a previous circular cannot be claimed as a right under a new, independent scheme with different parameters. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. In this Appeal, challenge has been raised by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) to the Division Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 18.12.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 against the Judgment of a Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition for grant of pension with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 01.12.2014, stood dismissed after he exercised his option as per the RBI Regulations/Circular dated 14.09.2020.
2. The facts are not in dispute and therefore are being referred at the very outset.
3. The employees of the RBI prior to 1990 were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (“CPF”) and the payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Gratuity Act”). For the first time, on 29.10.1990, the RBI with approval from its Central Board of Directors introduced the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990. Employees were informed vide Administration Circular No. 6 to the effect that the said regulations would come into effect from 01.11.1990 giving an option to the existing employees to join the said Pension Scheme or to continue with the RBI’s CPF. All new employees who joined on or after 01.11.1990 were to be governed by the 1990 Regulations. It also provided that the employees in service as on 01.01.1986 who retired before 01.11.1990 were also eligible for pension upon refunding the amount of CPF share of the RBI with accrued interest as received by them on their retirement, along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 6%. According to Regulation 31 thereof, employees retiring between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1990, although eligible to join the Pension Scheme, would receive the pension only from 01.11.1990 onwards, with no arrears for the period before the said date. On 07.02.1992 RBI issued another Administration Circular No. 5 amending the Pension Regulations, 1990 effective from 06.02.1992. Existing employees (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) were given a fresh option to switch to the Pension Regulations. Here again, no retrospective pensionary benefits were granted.
4. On 14.10.1995, Administration Circular No. 4 providing for another opportunity for existing employees as on 01.11.1992 excluding those on Leave Preparatory retirement to opt for the Pension Regulations. On this occasion, the refund of the CPF contribution made by the RBI and accrued interest was to be effected with 12% simple interest. It was clarified that it was not applicable to employees who had retired before 01.11.1992 making it prospective.
5. Three attempts made by the RBI to give another option to its employees to switch over from CPF to the Pension Scheme did not find favour with the Government of India on 04.02.2002, 26.02.2018 and 05.03.2019. On 14.09.2020, another Administration Circular No. 1 was issued, which allowed existing CPF optees and former employees who were in service on or after 01.11.1997 and retired with CPF to opt for Pension Regulations. This was obviously, subject to the refund of the CPF plus accrued interest amount pertaining to the RBI’s share with 12% simple interest. It is apparent that this Circular was not applicable to employees who had retired before 01.11.1997. A detailed memorandum of procedure for option to be exercised was issued by the RBI on 20.09.2000.
6. Respondent No. 1 joined service of the RBI on 14.09.1981 and became a member of the CPF Scheme in operation then for the staff. During his entire service tenure, until he retired as Manager on 30.11.2014, Respondent No.1 got four options to switch over to the Pension Scheme, starting from 01.11.1990 till 14.09.2000. He chose not to join the Pension Scheme rather continued with the CPF. As a matter of fact, on retirement, he was paid the entire dues of CPF and Gratuity.
7. It appears that Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 14.02.2020, after the Government of India rejected the proposal of RBI for another option for CPF optees to switch to the
