Back
2002 Supreme(Pat) 1449
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ.
Gaya Prasad Trivedi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Letter Patent Appeal No. 1308 of 2002 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 20, 2002
The timing of pension commutation requests and the normal consideration of commutation at the time of retirement were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Pension Commutation - Delay in Commutation Request - The court declined to interfere with the delay in considering the petitioner's request for pension commutation, noting that the petitioner's age and the timing of the request did not warrant commutation. The court highlighted the normal consideration of pension commutation at the time of retirement and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, aged approximately 78, sought to commute his pension after enjoying it for 20 years. The court questioned the seriousness of the request given the petitioner's age and the timing of the request.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the delay in considering the petitioner's request for pension commutation, emphasizing the normal timing of pension commutation at retirement and dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Delay in considering pension commutation request, equity in favor of petitioner, liberalized pension scheme provisions
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the timing of the petitioner's request for pension commutation, at the age of approximately 78, did not warrant interference, highlighting the normal consideration of pension commutation at the time of retirement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, declining to interfere with the delay in considering the petitioner's request for pension commutation.
1. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and having perused the record of the writ petition and the letters patent appeal, the court did ask learned counsel, if the petitioner-appellant was really serious about chasing his claim for commuting the pension after having enjoyed receipt of the pension for 20 years, which today makes him approximately 78 years of age. The petitioner-appellant now desires that for all the delay which may have been taken by the State-respondents in considering his request for commuting his pension, the request should be considered now. The delay has been noticed by the learned judge on the writ petition that this was not such a straight case in which commutation could have been considered for the asking.
2. The ridiculous part is that if pension is to be commuted now the period would end when the petitioner-appellant would be approximately 94 years of age. It is submitted before the court that equity is in favour of the petitioner-appellant and the court is being indicated that the liberalized pension scheme permits commutation, notwithstanding that the period has not been indicated as to when a pensioner may be stopped from making his request.
3. On the contrary, equity is in favour of the State. The commutation of pension is normally considered at the time when a pensioner has taken his retirement.
4. The court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the leamed Judge.
5. Dismissed.
