Another Set back - Restoration of commuted pension – Again rejected by Allhabad High Court in the Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2024 on 15.1.2025

 Restoration of commuted pension – Again rejected by Allhabad High Court in the Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2024 on 15.1.2025

 

Background

• Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 48 others, retired employees of Punjab National Bank.
• Respondent: Union of India and another.

• The petitioners availed the benefit of commutation of part of their pension at the time of superannuation, which stipulated that the original pension would be restored only after 15 years.
• The petitioners sought to challenge this provision, arguing for a reduction of the restoration period from 15 years to 10 years.

 

Court Findings

1. The court emphasized that the petitioners had accepted the commutation policy with full awareness of its terms, thereby creating a binding contract between the employees and the employer.
2. The court found no evidence that the terms of the commutation policy were unconstitutional or unconscionable. The petitioners did not contest the legality of the policy but sought a modification of its terms.
3. Once the petitioners acquiesced to the policy, they could not later seek to alter the agreed-upon terms regarding the restoration period of the pension.
4. The court's decision was supported by previous judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, reinforcing the principle that once a policy is accepted, it cannot be contested later.

 

The order cites several previous court judgments to support its findings:

1. Common Cause, A Registered Society and Others Vs. Union of India - (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 142.
2. R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Others - (1999) 8 SCC 106.
3. Forum Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union of India & Another - 2019 SCC Online Del 6610.
4. Shila Devi Vs. State of Punjab - CWP No. 9426 of 2023, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

These citations reinforce the court's stance on the binding nature of accepted policies and the inability to alter agreed-upon terms post-acceptance.

 

Conclusion

The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioners must adhere to the original terms of the commutation policy, which clearly stipulates a 15-year restoration period for the pension. The ruling underscores the importance of clarity and acceptance in contractual agreements between employees and employers.