Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1331
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand Thr. Chief Secretary and others – Appellants
Versus
M.C. Bhandari and another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1614 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 1615 of 2011
Decided On : 04-11-2026
Important Points
(1) Salary – While fixing salary upon appointment after retirement, principle of “pay minus pension” can be applied in determining amount of salary – Deduction of pension by way of keeping it abeyance does not amount to variation in conditions of service under Proviso to Article 318 of Constitution.
(2) Appointment – A candidate, who participates in selection process or a student who undergoes examination is not entitled to subsequently question norms and rules regarding conduct of process of recruitment or examination.
Act Referred
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Conditions of Service Regulations : Reg.7(2)
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations : Reg.7(2), Reg.7(1)
Headnote
(A) Service Law – Salary – While fixing salary upon appointment after retirement, principle of “pay minus pension” was applied in determining amount of salary – While deduction of pension by way of keeping it abeyance does not amount to variation in conditions of service under Proviso to Article 318 of Constitution, deduction of part of pension, which was receivable by original petitioners for their previously held posts as Government servants would remain effective only during tenure of Chairman or Member of Uttarakhand PSC – There was no withdrawing of pension – It is only withholding during period when posts of Chairman or Member of Uttarakhand PSC is held – Question of breach of doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not arise – Having accepted appointment to respective posts with open eyes and knowledge and having assumed office with consciousness that Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations were applicable, it was not permissible for petitioners to claim a different chord about applicability of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations and cannot fall them in question about their applicability – Principle of Acquiescence would operate so as not to permit original petitioners to raise the challenge – Impugned judgments and orders set aside. [Regulation 7(2) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2004] (Paras 5.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 11.1, 12.1 and 13)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – One who participates in a game, cannot later challenge rules of game – A candidate, who participates in selection process or a student who undergoes examination is not entitled to subsequently question norms and rules regarding conduct of process of recruitment or examination – Similarly, a Government servant or an employee, who accepts the post cannot afterwards be permitted to resile from or to agitate in respect of service conditions and service regulations attached to the post which he accepted. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The central question arises to be addressed is, upon appointment of original petitioners as Chairman and Member respectively of Uttarakhand PSC, whether they are entitled to receive salary added by the amount of pension which was receivable by them in respect of post held before their retirement; whether State of Uttarakhand was justified in law in fixing salary of said Government servants appointed on above posts after their retirement by withholding amount of pension during tenure of appointed posts, by applying Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations?
Findings of Court:
High Court committed manifest error in declaring Regulation 7(2) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations ultra vires and granting relief to original petitioners. Impugned judgments and orders dated 15.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.182 (SB) of 2008 and Writ Petition No.181 (SB) of 2008 are not sustainable in law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
For the Appellant(s) Dr. Abhishek Atrey- 1601, AOR Ms. Ishita Bist, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv. Mr. Navneet Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dr Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vandana Sharma Bhandari- 2502, AOR Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Kumudini Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Both these Appeals, preferred by the State of Uttarakhand, involve similar facts and identical issues. Therefore, they are treated simultaneously for disposal by this common judgment.
2. Civil Appeal No.1614 of 2011 is directed against judgment and order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand1[Hereinafter, “High Court”] in Writ Petition No.182 (SB) of 2008, whereas the other Civil Appeal No.1615 of 2011 addresses the challenge to the judgment and order of even date passed in Writ Petition No. 181 (SB) of 2008.
2.1 Before the High Court, the original petitioners-respondent No.1 herein in each case prayed to declare Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 20042[Hereinafter, “Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations”] as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 318 of the Constitution. It was next prayed to set aside order passed by the Finance Officer, Uttarakhand Government as well as the consequential order passed by the Secretary, Public Service Commission, by which the pension of the original petitioners in both the cases was ordered to be deducted from the admissible salary of Chairman and, as the case may be, the Member, of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission3[Hereinafter, “Uttarakhand PSC”].
2.2 The third prayer was to direct the respondents to restore and fix the pay of the original petitioners without deducting their pension from the date of their appointment as the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Member of Uttarakhand PSC in accordance with Regulation 7(1) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations. It was prayed for a direction against the respondents to pay the amount of salary of the original petitioners.
2.3 The High Court, allowing the writ petitions, declared Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations to be ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Order dated 16.09.2008 impugned before the High Court whereby it was provided to deduct the pension from the salary of the original petitioners, came to be set aside. It was further directed that in case any deduction was made from the emoluments payable to the original petitioners as Chairman or, as the case may be, the Member of the Uttarakhand PSC on the basis of the aforementioned communication dated 16.09.2008 under Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, the same shall be reimbursed.
3. Tracing the relevant facts from Civil Appeal No.1614 of 2011 treating the same to be the lead appeal, respondent No.1 herein – original petitioner Lieutenant General (Retired) Mr. M.C. Bhandari, retired from the post of Lieutenant General in the Indian Army with effect from 30.08.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he came to be appointed by the appellant-State as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC by order dated 03.11.2006. He assumed his duties of the post of Chairman with effect from 24.11.2006.
3.1 The salary of the said petitioner came to be fixed for the post of Chairman, Uttarakhand PSC at basic pay of Rs.26,000/- together with admissible allowances. The order of pay fixation contained a note that the pension payable to him on account of his previous services as Lieutenant General would be deducted from the salary payable for the post of Chairman. By order dated 19.12.2006, the Finance Controller, Uttarakhand PSC accordingly fixed the salary of the said original petitioner as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC after deducting Rs.17,627/-, the amount of pension drawn by him.
3.1.1 The aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.06.2007 asking for redetermination of his remuneration as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC, contending that the pension earned by him for his previous services in the armed forces constituted a vested right for him and that it bore no nexus to the office of the Chairman of
