The court reaffirmed that agreements on commutation terms are binding, thus denying alteration requests after voluntary acceptance.

ORDER (Oral)

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicants herein are retired employees of different departments under Union of India, who got a lump sum amount as commuted value of a part of their pension, as per CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Since the issue raised by the applicants, the grounds and the relief claimed are identical in these OAs, therefore, these 106 Original Applications are taken up together for hearing and adjudication, on the request of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised by the applicants herein is to Rule 10-A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (Annexure A-1) which provides for restoration of commuted portion of pension after a period of 15 years. They have also prayed for quashing the action of the respondents in recovering commuted value of pension in 15 years, which stood recovered in full in 10 years and 08 months.

3. As per the provisions of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, the Government servants, who have retired from service under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 can commute a portion not exceeding 40% of their monthly pension. The commuted portion of pension shall get restored after fifteen years from the month following the month of payment of Commuted Value of Pension. The grievance of the applicants is that the entire amount of commuted value of pension paid to a retiree along with interest stands recovered within 10 years and 08 months, but the Government deduct the instalments of commuted value of pension in equal 180 installments i.e. 15 years, which is not justified.

4. In support of their claim, the applicants relied upon the recommendation of the 5^th CPC report, that the restoration of pension should be after 12 years instead of 15 years, which was noticed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Central Government Pensioners Association Vs. Union of India , 2008 (19) SCT 6188.

5. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicants. It has been stated that the similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Common Cause ” A registered Society And Others Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 142, and by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Forum of Retired IPS Officers Vs. Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1222/2015 decided on 17.01.2019 and by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a bunch matter with leading case titled Shila Devi and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 9426 of 2023 and connected matters decided on 27.11.2024). It has been prayed that in view of the aforesaid judgments the claim of the applicants deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides.

7. We have also perused the judgments relied upon by the respondents. In Shila Devi’s case (supra), the petitioners are retired employees of State of Punjab, who opted for commutation of their pension in terms of applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and they challenged sub rule (2) of Rule 11.1 of PCS Rules, which is para materia to the Rule 10-A of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (under challenge in the instant case) and provides that the portion of pension commuted by a pensioner shall be restored after completion of a period of 15 years from the actual date of commutation. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the bunch of 808 Writ Petitions vide order dated 27.11.2024 in Shila Devi’s case (supra) after holding that “Having availed of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the grievances as noted above, at this stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by them with open eyes. The relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

27. “It is a matter of record that all the petitioners before us are retired employees who have admi