Trilokchand Dhaneriya vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
Trilokchand Dhaneriya v. The State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petitions No. 34088 of 2024, 34470 of 2024, 35544 of 2024, 35546 of 2024, 36261 of 2024, 36262 of 2024, 36263 of 2024, 36591 of 2024, 36771 of 2024, 37350 of 2024, 37839 of 2024, 37870 of 2024, 38142 of 2024, 38182 of 2024, 38211 of 2024, 38997 of 2024, 39849 of 2024, 40020 of 2024, 40023 of 2024, 40085 of 2024, 40128 of 2024, 40254 of 2024, 40337 of 2024, 40338 of 2024, 40623 of 2024, 40765 of 2024, 40771 of 2024, 40902 of 2024, 41312 of 2024, 3539 of 2025, 3561 of 2025, 8422 of 2025, 9456 of 2025, 9477 of 2025, 12509 of 2025, 12510 of 202513528 of 2025, 13981 of 2025, 14993 of 2025, 14996 of 2025, 15242 of 2025 and 17355 of 2025 (Indore);
Decided on . 30.6.2025

Advocates appeared:
Aditya Goyal, Karpe Mohan Prakhar, Yash Nagar and Dheeraj
Singh Pawar for respective petitioners; Sudeep Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State; Yogesh Hemnani for other respondents.

Headnote:
(1) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- R. 10(1) -- restoration of commuted portion of pension -- petitioner opted for commutation of pension -- respondents sanctioned it vide order dated 5.10.2013 -- sub-rule (1) substituted vide Notification dated 7.2.2000 will apply, according to which petitioner is entitled to restoration of commuted portion of pension after attaining age of 75 years or 15 years from date of retirement, whichever is earlier -- petitioner neither attained age of 75 years, nor 15 years lapsed from date of retirement -- pension not liable to be restored -- period during which repayment by way of EMI was not given to respondents due to stay granted by Court, liable to be paid by petitioners along with regular scheduled EMI. 2024: PHHC: 157352-DB relied on. [Paras 12 & 19
(2) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 8 and 9 -- rate of interest -- commuted amount paid to pensioner is completely tax-free and without guarantee, unlike bank loans or private loans -- commutation of pension can never be equated or compared with loans given by banks or private persons, which are commercial in nature -- petitioner had knowledge about rate of interest at time of commutation, therefore, principle of estoppel will apply -- petitioner voluntarily availed benefit under the Rules, hence, cannot raise any grievance -- petitioner, after understanding rate of interest payable for period of 15 years, accepted commuted amount from State Government -- now at time of repayment, petitioner cannot challenge terms and conditions of loan, that too statutory in nature -- it is purely a policy matter, in which experts decide rate of interest to be applied -- cannot be interfered by High Court.
[Paras 14 & 15
(3) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 8 and 9 -- rate of interest -- petitioners aggrieved by fixed rate of interest -- there is no provision in the Rules about floating rate of interest at par with RBI. [Para 18
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 10¼1½ && isU'ku ds dE;wVsM Hkkx dk çR;korZu && ;kph us isU'ku ds dE;wVs'ku dk fodYi pquk && çR;FkhZx.k us vkns'k fnukad 5-10-2013 }kjk mldh eatwjh nh && vfèklwpuk fnukad 7-2-2000 }kjk çfrLFkkfir mifu;e ¼1½ ykxw gksxk] ftlds vuqlkj ;kph 75 o"kZ dh o; çkIr gksus ij vFkok lsokfuo`fÙk ds fnukad ls 15 o"kZ ds i'pkr~ tks Hkh igys gks] isU'ku ds dE;wVsM Hkkx ds çR;korZu dk gdnkj gksxk && ;kph us u rks 75 o"kZ dh o; çkIr dh] u lsokfuo`fÙk ds fnukad ls 15 o"kZ O;ixr gq, && isU'ku çR;kofrZr ugha dh tk,xh && U;k;ky; ds jksd vkns'k ds dkj.k ftl vof/k ds nkSjku çR;FkhZx.k dks bZ,evkb ds ek/;e ls çfrlank; ugha fd;k x;kA ;kph }kjk mldk lank; fu;fer fu;r bZ,evkb ds lkFk&lkFk fd;k tk,xkA 2024 % ih,p,plh % 157352 Mhch voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 19
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ && fu- 8 rFkk 9 && C;kt dh nj && isU'kuHkksxh dks lanÙk dE;wVsM jde iw.kZr% dj&eqä vkSj fcuk fdlh çR;kHkwfr ds gksrh gS] tSlk cSad ds _.k ;k futh _.k esa ugha gksrk
&& isU'ku ds dE;wVs'ku dh lekurk ;k rqyuk dHkh Hkh cSadksa ;k futh O;fä;ksa }kjk fn, x, _.k ls ugha dh tk ldrh] ftudh ç—fr okf.kfT;d gksrh gS && ;kph dks dE;wVs'ku ds le; C;kt dh nj ds ckjs esa Kkr Fkk] vr%- foca/k dk fl)kar ykxw gksxk && ;kph us fu;eksa ds v/khu Qk;ns dk ykHk LosPNk ls fy;k blfy, og f'kdk;r ugha dj ldrk && ;kph us] 15 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, lans; C;kt dh nj le>us ds i'pkr~] jkT; ljdkj ls dE;wVsM jde Lohdkj dh && vc çfrlank; ds le;] ;kph _.k ds fuca/kuksa rFkk 'krks± ij vk{ksi ugha dj ldrk] og Hkh dkuwuh ç—fr ds && ;g fo'kq)r% uhfr dk fo"k; gS] ftlesa ykxw gksus okyh C;kt dh nj fo'ks"kK fofuf'pr djrs gSa && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 8 rFkk 9 && C;kt dh nj && ;kph C;kt dh fLFkj nj ls O;fFkr && fu;eksa esa Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds leewY; ij ifjorZu'khy C;kt dh nj ds ckjs esa dksbZ mica/k ughaA ¼iSjk 18

ORDER

Rusia, J. -- Since the subject matter in these writ petitions is identical, with the joint request of parties, all the petitions are analogously heard and being decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.34088 of 2024 which are narrated hereunder.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Rule 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 as amended vide Notification dated 5.2.2013 and also the Notification dated 3.4.2013 which provides for restoration of commuted part of pension after a period of 15 years as illegal, arbitrary being ultra-vires of the provisions of Constitution of India. The petitioner is seeking refund of the excess amount recovered from the period beyond the period of 10 years and 08 months along with interest @ 18% per annum.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

2. The petitioner is a senior citizen of India and comes under the category of pensioner of the respondents. The petitioner retired from the post of Office Assistant, Grade – I on 31.12.2012 from the office of Joint Secretary – III, the Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as MPPKVVCL).

3. The MPPKVVCL is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (Now 2013) incorporated after bifurcation of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The MPPKVVCL is engaged in the sale and distribution of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh and adopted the Service Rules framed by the Government from time to time.

4. The State Government, in the exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made rules known as the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (in short 'the Rules of 1996') which came into force w.e.f. 6th day of February, 1995. The rules have been made applicable to those Government Servants who may be entitled or to have authorize any class of pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 etc.

5. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 provides for a Restriction on the commutation of pension and rule 5 provides for a Limit on the commutation of pension. As per rule 6, the commutation of pension shall become absolute on which the application in Form 'A' is received by the Head of Office and as per proviso, the reduction in the amount of pension on account commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of commuted value of pension. Rule 8 prescribes the Calculation of the commuted value of pension, according to which the lump sum payable to an applicant shall be calculated in accordance with the value table appended to these rules. Rule 11 provides for the application for commutation of pension. Which requires interpretation in this writ petition.

6. After retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2012, respondents vide pension order dated 14.12.2012 sanctioned pension of Rs.15,140/- per month. The petitioner opted for commutation of pension under the Rules of 1996 and vide order dated 5.10.2013, an amount of Rs.5,06,881/- was determined and paid to the petitioner against commutation of 1/3rd portion of pension. In order to repay the amount, an EMI of Rs.5,046/- i.e. @ 1/3rd of the pension was fixed for the period of 180 months by way of deduction from the amount of monthly pension as per rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner started getting the reduced pension of Rs.10,094/- w.e.f. December, 2013. At the time of commutation of pension, the petitioner was aged about 59 years, therefore, as per the table, factor 8.371 was applied and an amount of Rs.5,06,881/- was paid to the petitioner. At that time, the interest was 8% per annum and was applied for repayment of the commuted amount in 180 months @ EMI of Rs.5,046/. The pension is liable to be restored on 1.1.2019.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rate of interest i.e. 8% appl