Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 18829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, Bhuwan Goyal, J
Rajasthan Sevanivrat Police Kalyan Sansthan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17484/2024|D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16874/2024|D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11229/2024|D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18294/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.V. Nandwana, Premchand Sharma, Yashvardhan Nandwana, Anand Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Rajendra Prasad, Harshita Thakral, Kartikey Sharma, Sandeep Taneja
The restoration of commuted pension involves executive policy and financial implications, which are best addressed through an expert committee review rather than immediate judicial intervention, while preserving the right to seek future remedy if grievances remain unresolved.
Headnote:The present proceedings involve a challenge to the rules governing the restoration period of commuted pension. The petitioners contend that the current fourteen-year restoration period, as prescribed under the Rules, causes financial hardship and requires re-evaluation in light of pay commission recommendations and judicial precedent. The court observed that the issues pertain to executive policy decisions and financial implications. The court addressed the primary issue of whether the stipulated duration for pension restoration warrants judicial intervention for modification. Relying on arguments regarding policy discretion, the Court determined that the matter is best suited for administrative expert evaluation rather than direct judicial imposition, while acknowledging the petitioners' right to seek redressal through representation. The writ petitions are disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petitions in the event their grievances are not redressed by the State following an expert committee review.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grievance regarding pension restoration period under rule 29 of the 1996 rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties agree to have representations considered by the state for potential redressal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directs the state to constitute an expert committee to examine the grievance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
Order
05 /03/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, we are inclined to dispose off these writ petitions at this stage.
2. The grievance raised through these writ petitions essentially centers around the period within which the full pension is to be restored under the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (herein referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). Full pension is restored after a period of 14 years in case of commutation of pension under the scheme of the Rules of 1996. The period of restoration of the pension, according to the petitioners, is such that it results in financial loss and according to the petitioners, the restoration period is required to be reworked in the light of the recommendations made by Fifth Pay Commission and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Common Cause”, A Registered Society & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
142.
3. Learned Advocate General would submit that these are essentially matters of policy decision. He would bring to the notice of the Court the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Shila Devi & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.(Civil Writ Petition No. 9426/2023 & other connected matters decided on 27.11.2024), wherein the similar challenge was repelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at this stage, these petitions may be disposed off for consideration of the petitioners’ representations by the State with liberty to revive, in case, the grievance is not redressed.
5. Learned Advocate General would submit that if any representations are made, the State would examine the same.
6. Taking into consideration the nature of exercise required to be undertaken which involves financial implications also, the State may constitute a Committee of Experts which shall examine the grievance of the pensioners-petitioners. The Committee may submit its recommendations to the State and it will be open for the State to take such decision as it considers appropriate in the matters.
7. Taking into consideration that grievance has been raised by those who are retired employees, the Committee shall endeavour to submit its report within a period of six months.
8. The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly with liberty to file fresh petition in case grievance is not redressed.
9. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of each connected petition.
