IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.04.2026 Hari Shanker …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J . (O RAL )

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been denied the benefit of commutation of pension at the discount rate of 4.75% and has been subjected to commutation at the enhanced discount rate of 8% for the period between 31.07.2003 to 30.10.2006. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-calculate the commuted value of pension of the petitioner by applying the discount rate of 4.75% instead of 8%; refund the excess amount recovered from the petitioner on account of application of the higher discount rate and release all consequential arrears arising therefrom with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the Government service on 02.11.1974 as Science Master and retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.10.2006. He further submits that prior to 29.07.2003, the discount rate for commutation of pension was 4.75%, resulting in commutation value of 10.46 years purchase. However, the Government of Punjab, vide Circular dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-1), enhanced the same from 4.75% to 8%, thereby reducing the commutation value to 6.21 years purchase, causing heavy financial loss to the retirees. Subsequently, the Government of Punjab, vide circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-2), restored the earlier commutation table based on 4.75% discount rate, but the same was made applicable prospectively only. He further submits that the petitioner, who retired on 31.10.2006, falls within the category of retirees who were adversely affected due to application of 8% discount rate. That the impugned action of the respondents created an artificial and unreasonable classification between the employees retired before 31.07.2003; employees retired between 31.07.2003 to 30.10.2006 and employees retired on or after 31.10.2006. He further submits that similarly situated retirees challenged the impugned circular before this Court and the matter was finally decided, vide judgment dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed in CWP No.15554 of 2007 titled as ‘Gian Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’ and other connected matters, whereby the writ petitions were allowed and the classification was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 10.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) before the respondents requesting grant of benefit of the aforesaid judgment but to no avail.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant documents.

4. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the Government, vide Circular dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-1), enhanced the discount rate for commutation of pension from 4.75% to 8%, thereby causing heavy financial loss to the retirees. Although, vide circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-2), the Government restored the earlier commutation table based on 4.75% discount rate, however, the same was made applicable prospectively only. The petitioner, having retired on 31.10.2006, falls within the category of retirees who were adversely affected by the application of the 8% discount rate, resulting in substantial financial loss to him.

5. The petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.10.2006, whereas he approached this Court, claiming benefit of commutation of pension at the discount rate of 4.75%, in the year 2026, i.e. after a delay of more than 19 years. Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in approaching this Cour