The court upheld the 15-year recovery period for commuted pension, deeming it constitutional and a legitimate economic policy under legislative discretion, not subject to judicial interference.

COMMON ORDER

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

These are batch of writ petitions where the grievance of all the petitioners is common. Hence, in terms of the agreement that was arrived at during the course of hearing, the Bench proceeded to hear all these batch matters analogously and also decided to pass a common order.

2. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Gummi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.20932, 27542, 28636, 29277, 31084 and 32535 of 2024, Mr. P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.Raman Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D.Laxminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.30114, 30941, 31063, 31772, 31775, 32458 and 34179 of 2024, Mr. P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Ponurupar Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.32887 of 2024, and Mr. Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for State Bank of India in Writ Petition Nos. 32458, 30941, 30114, 31063, 31775, 31772, 34179 and 32887 of 2024, Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for State Bank of Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos.32535, 20932, 28636, 31084, 27542 and 29277 of 2024; Mr. S.Suman, learned Government Pleader for Finance & Treasury (Services - III) and Mrs. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for General Administration and Law Department (Services - II).

3. There are three set of writ petitions in this batch where the grievance is common, but these three set of petitioners belong to different categories or under different set of employers. Firstly, the majority writ petitions are by the State Government employees, second is the batch of writ petitions pertaining to employees who have retired after serving the State Bank of India and the third category is all those employees from the banking sector who have worked in banks other than the State Bank of India, like the State Bank of Hyderabad, Union Bank of India, Andhra Bank, etc. etc.

4. All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are retired employees of either the State Government or from the State Bank of India or from other nationalized banks.

5. All these writ petitioners on their attaining the age of superannuation and retiring from service had voluntarily applied and received commutation of pension under the respective pension rules governing the respective employment under whom the petitioners were working. All these petitioners have practically retired from service by now, by over a decade i.e. more than 10 years back.

6. The grievance that the petitioners have now raised is that the payment of pension payable to the petitioners should now be restored entitling them for full pension without any further deduction, instead of waiting for entire 15 years, as is prescribed under the respective pension rules governing their employment. According to the petitioners, the amount of commuted pension that each of the petitioner have availed and received has already been recovered along with interest also by the employer, and as such, there is no further necessity of recoveries from pension being continued for the remaining period of 15 years from the date of commutation having been made.

7. In nutshell, what is prayed by the petitioners is that the fixation of timeline of 15 years of reduced pension upon commutation being availed is bad, arbitrary and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That