The acceptance of pension commutation terms creates a binding contract, and the 15-year recovery period is upheld as reasonable and not subject to judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard 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.

2. This 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.

3. The 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.

4. Learned counsels for petitioners have also argued that there is no provision that by way of an Office Memorandum 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.

5. This 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 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 ."

6. In re