Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 704
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Krishn Kumar Lahoti, M.A.Siddiqui, JJ.
T.P. Mamtani & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. No. 263-2001,W.P. No. 11006-2006, W.P. No. 13735-2008
Decided On : 01-01-2013
For petitioners:Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Vishal Dhagat, Advocate
For respondent/State: Mr. Vivek Agrawal, G.A.
The commutation scheme is optional and, while it may be less beneficial to the employees, it does not violate fundamental rights and cannot be declared ultra vires.
Headnote:
Commuted Pension - Pension Commutation Rates - M.P. Civil Services (Commutations of Pension) Rules 1996 - Rule 6 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions to quash a notification that reduced the rates of commutation of pension, affecting the interest of retired employees. The petitioners argued that the reduction was harsh and drastic, diminishing the commutation value and adversely affecting retirees in urgent need of lumpsum amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the commutation scheme is optional and the petitioners need not opt for it. The court acknowledged that while the scheme may be less beneficial to the employees, it does not violate fundamental rights and cannot be declared ultra vires.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notification reducing the rates of commutation of pension was unconstitutional and violated the rights of the retired employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the commutation scheme is optional and, while it may be less beneficial to the employees, it does not violate fundamental rights and cannot be declared ultra vires.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit or substance in the arguments presented.
ORDER
M.A. Siddiqui, J. - This common order shall govern the disposal of all the three Writ Petitions as they have been filed for common cause.
2. These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the notification dated 18.2.2000 by which the new rates of commutation of pension came into force.
3. (a) In brief the facts of the petitions are that M.P. Government is paying pension to its retired employees and in the year 1976 by framing rules introduced the theme of "commutation". The idea behind the scheme was that at the time of retirement an employee may have urgent need of lumpsum money to settle down and solve his problems like education of children, marriage of children, construction of house etc. so the scheme of commutation was formulated through the rules in which some portion of pension was given in lumpsum in advance and retired employee is given limited pension, upto certain years and after that he would get full pension. This scheme of commutation was captioned as 'M.P. Civil Services (Commutations of Pension) Rules' 1996 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
(b) Under Rule 6 of M.P. Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, State Government have prescribed table of values of commutation of pension as under. This table is based on the rate of interest of 4.75 percent per annum and the improvement in the mortality rate as indicated by the experience of Postal Life Insurance Policy holders. This table came into force w.e.f. 1/1/1976.
| COMMUTATION TABLE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6 OF M.P. CIVIL PENSIONS (COMMUTATION) RULES. | |||
| Effective from 11.1.1979 | |||
| Age next day | Commutation value expressed as number years purchases | Age next birthday | Commutation values expressed as numbers of years purchase |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 17 | 19.28 | 18 | 19.20 |
| 19 | 19.11 | 20 | 19.01 |
| 21 | 18.91 | 22 | 18.81 |
| 23 | 18.70 | 24 | 18.59 |
| 25 | 18.47 | 26 | 18.34 |
| 27 | 18.21 | 28 | 18.07 |
| 29 | 19.73 | 30 | 17.78 |
| 31 | 17.62 | 32 | 17.46 |
| 33 | 17.29 | 34 | 17.11 |
| 35 | 16.92 | 36 | 16.72 |
| 37 | 16.52 | 38 | 16.31 |
| 39 | 16.09 | 40 | 15.87 |
| 41 | 15.64 | 42 | 15.40 |
| 43 | 15.15 | 44 | 14.90 |
| 45 | 16.64 | 46 | 14.37 |
| 47 | 14.10 | 48 | 13.82 |
| 49 | 13.54 | 50 | 13.25 |
| 51 | 12.95 | 52 | 12.66 |
| 53 | 12.35 | 54 | 12.05 |
| 55 | 11.73 | 56 | 11.42 |
| 57 | 11.10 | 58 | 10.78 |
| 59 | 10.46 | 60 | 10.13 |
| 61 | 9.81 | 62 | 9.48 |
| 63 | 9.15 | 64 | 8.82 |
| 65 | 8.54 | 66 | 8.17 |
| 67 | 7.85 | 68 | 7.53 |
| 69 | 7.22 | 70 | 6.91 |
| 71 | 6.60 | 72 | 6.30 |
| 73 | 6.01 | 74 | 5.72 |
| 75 | 5.44 | 76 | 5.17 |
| 77 | 4.90 | 78 | 4.65 |
| 79 | 4.40 | 80 | 4.17 |
| 81 | 3.94 | 82 | 3.72 |
| 82 | 3.52 | 84 | 3.32 |
| 84 | 3.13 |
|
|
(c) On 18.2.2000 the government had reduced the rate of commutation vide the impugned notification dated 18.2.2000 (Annexure P-1), amending the rates of commutation, which are reproduced as under:-
| Age next birthday | Commutation valued as Nos. of years purchase |
| 40 | 7.48 |
| 41 | 7.46 |
| 42 | 7.43 |
| 43 | 7.38 |
| 44 | 7.35 |
| 45 | 7.31 |
| 46 | 7.25 |
| 47 | 7.20 |
| 48 | 7.13 |
| 49 | 7.06 |
| 50 | 6.97 |
| 51 | 6.88 |
| 52 | 6.77 |
| 53 | 6.65 |
| 54 | 6.52 |
| 55 | 6.37 |
| 56 | 6.20 |
| 57 | 6.00 |
| 58 | 5.78 |
| 59 | 5.53 |
| 60 | 5.25 |
| 61 | 4.93 |
| 62 | 4.58 |
| 63 | 4.17 |
| 64 | 3.72 |
| 65 | 3.2 |
| 66 | 2.81 |
| 67 | 2.38 |
| 68 | 1.89 |
| 69 | 1.33 |
| 70 | 0.71 |
These amendments came into, force with effect from the date of publication of this notification in official Gazette. The above notification is under challenge.
(d) The petitioners being aggrieved with the amendment of table of commutation urged that by making amendment in the rate of commutation, on a bare perusal of the old rates of commutation (i.e. rates prior to 18.2.2000) and th
