The court upheld the 15-year pension recovery period, deeming it non-arbitrary based on established precedents.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P(C)

No.39729 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 17.02.2025, dismissing their writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Declare that the fixation of “15 years” time period for restoration of pension is illegal.

ii. Declare that the period of recovery of commuted amount shall not exceed the actual period for such recovery at the rate of one-third of the basic pension amount.

iii. To quash Regulation 41(5) of the Corporation Bank(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent bank to stop recovering from the monthly pension of petitioners towards repayment of commuted value of pension once the commutation amount is paid back in full.

v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent bank to refund the amount recovered from the petitioners in excess of the total commutation amount.

vi. Declare that the 2^nd respondent bank is not liable to effect recovery from pension towards commuted value of pension after the commutation amount is fully recovered.”

3. The appellants/writ petitioners are former employees of the erstwhile Corporation Bank, which got merged with the 2^nd respondent bank, with effect from 2019. The first appellant joined the bank on 19.11.1982 and retired on 30.11.2013. The 2^nd appellant joined the bank on 18.08.1977 and retired on 01.07.2014. The retirement benefits of the appellants are governed by the Corporation Bank(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations' for short). The 2^nd respondent bank is bound to honour the provisions of the Regulations. The appellants commuted their pension as per Regulation 41 of the Regulations on their retirement. As per the Regulations, an employee may commute one-third of his pension with the option to choose either the maximum limit or a lower amount, according to their preference. As per Regulation 41(5), full pension is restored after 15 years from the date of commutation. A detailed calculation discloses that, it requires only

118 months to recover the commutation amount in full and that the amount collected for the remaining 62 months goes to the bank's account. The Pension Regulations do not provide for levying of interest on the commutation amount and, thus the 2^nd respondent bank is extorting additional sums from the retirees, under the pretext of recovering the commuted pension amount. There is undue enrichment to the 2^nd respondent bank due to the afore act and hence, the period of 15 years fixed is arbitrary. This arbitrary extension imposes an additional unwarranted burden on the appellants depriving them of their rightful pension for several years. It is in such circumstances, the appellants preferred the writ petition claiming the afore reliefs.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

5. Heard Adv.V.K.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Adv.G.Maheswary, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Adv.Sadchith.P.Kurup, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

2^nd respondent bank's practice of reducing the pension for a period of 15 years is arbitrary and unjust, considering the fact that the commuted portion of pension is recovered in a much shorter period of 118 months. He submitted that the appellants have already repaid the full commuted amount and since, the bank does not levy interest on the commuted amount, the policy of uniform 15 years period vi