The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s policy requiring pensioners to continue pension commutation recovery for 15 years. The court ruled that pension commutation is a voluntary scheme and that retired employees cannot demand changes after accepting its terms.
The decision, delivered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, reinforces previous judgments that pension commutation policies, once opted into, create a binding obligation on the pensioners. The court emphasized that such policies cannot be challenged on the grounds of inconvenience or financial hardship if they have been accepted voluntarily.
Background of the Case
The petitioners in the case were retired employees from the Uttar Pradesh Government’s Higher Education Department, who had availed themselves of the pension commutation scheme under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941. Under this scheme, government employees can choose to receive a lump sum amount at the time of retirement by commuting a portion of their pension. This amount is later recovered through deductions from their monthly pension over a specified period.
The petitioners argued that their commuted amount had already been recovered within 10 to 12 years, yet the government continued deductions for 15 years, as per an Office Memorandum issued on December 8, 2008. They claimed this resulted in them paying more than the original commuted amount, which they contended was excessive, arbitrary, and without statutory backing.
The key writ petitions in the matter included:
- WRIT – A No. 19031 of 2024: Radheshyam Shukla and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others
- WRIT – A No. 1169 of 2025: Awadhesh Kumar and 6 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others
- WRIT – A No. 1207 of 2025: Dr. Kailash Narain Trigunayat v. State of U.P. and 3 others
- WRIT – A No. 1378 of 2025: Hakim Singh Verma and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others
The petitioners were represented by a team of legal counsels including Nawal Kishor Mishra, Praveen Tiwari, Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Rajesh Tripathi, and Vijai Kumar Rai, among others. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Rajesh Kumar Tiwari.
Legal Issues Before the Court
The court examined the following legal questions:
- Was the extension of the commutation recovery period to 15 years legally valid?
- The petitioners argued that there was no legal provision explicitly mandating a 15-year recovery period and that the government could not unilaterally extend it via an Office Memorandum.
- Did the government overrecover from the petitioners by continuing deductions beyond 10 to 12 years?
- The petitioners asserted that since the commuted amount was recovered within a decade, any further deduction constituted unjust enrichment by the government.
- Could the court interfere with the government’s policy on pension commutation?
- The respondents contended that commutation is an optional scheme and once accepted, pensioners are bound by its terms. They relied on past Supreme Court rulings which held that pension commutation falls within the realm of policy and cannot be judicially reviewed unless shown to be irrational or arbitrary.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Dismissing the petitions, the High Court held that the petitioners had no legal basis to challenge the policy after voluntarily opting for commutation. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery cited several precedents, including:
- Supreme Court’s ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 142, which established that commutation of pension is an option exercised at the discretion of the pensioner and cannot be subjected to judicial interference unless manifestly arbitrary.
- Delhi High Court’s judgment in Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) v. Union of India (2019 SCC Online Del 6610), which emphasized that pension-related policies involve financial considerations best determined by the government, not the courts.
- Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench ruling in Ashok Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India (2025:AHC:6439-DB), which rejected similar claims by retired employees of Punjab National Bank.
The court further criticized the petitioners for the delay in filing the case, noting that they had waited 16 years after the 2008 notification before approaching the judiciary. Justice Shamshery remarked:
“The impugned notification is from the year 2008, and they have approached this Court in the year 2024 – after more than 16 years – probably being fence sitters, waiting for favorable orders from other courts.”
The court underscored that the petitioners willingly accepted the scheme and its terms. It ruled that they could not now challenge the policy simply because they later found the deductions inconvenient. Citing the Supreme Court’s observations in R. Gandhi v. Union of India (1999) 8 SCC 106, Justice Shamshery reiterated:
“The decision in Common Cause (1987) has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming that the 15-year recovery period is valid and does not prejudice the rights of pensioners.”
Dismissal of Petitions
After reviewing the arguments, the court concluded that the government’s policy was neither arbitrary nor unjust. It noted that the installment amounts deducted from the pensioners’ monthly pensions were between ₹11,000 and ₹14,000, which was not exorbitant. Additionally, the petitioners had failed to provide proof of financial hardship or misuse of the policy.
The court dismissed all 26 writ petitions, stating:
“The commutation of pension is a policy decision that has been upheld by multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. No valid ground exists to challenge the 15-year recovery period.”
The interim relief granted in some of the petitions was also vacated, and the court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of the judgment to the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Uttar Pradesh.
