Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Radheshyam Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
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
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.
The court upheld the 15-year recovery period for pension commutation value, emphasizing it prevents unjust enrichment while balancing pensioners' rights and financial sustainability.
The existing 15-year period for pension commutation restoration is upheld as lawful, with no justifications for its reduction.
The court upheld the 15-year pension recovery period, deeming it non-arbitrary based on established precedents.
The court upheld the 15-year period for restoration of commuted pension as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, affirming binding legal precedent.
Rule. 315 (a) Government may sanction commutation for a lump amount, of one-half of the pension or any lesser amount provided that the residue of pension after commutation is not reduced to less than....
Deduction from commuted pension is justifiable under rules prohibiting restoration of commutation once paid, preventing unjust enrichment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
