30th June retirees case - Supreme Court passed comments- noncompliance costs as well as interest may be imposed.

 Restoration of commuted portion of pension after 12 years-  Description for the posts made in the You Tube channels on 15.12.& 16.12.2024

• We have discussed at length in our previous episode about the full justification for restoration of commuted portion of pension after completion of 10 years and 8 months.

• Most of the interim orders emanated from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Followed this many High Courts have passed interim orders to stop the commuted amount after 11, or 12 years after the superannuation.

• A great shock to our expectation and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has disposed 9426 of 2023 and 807 connected petitions of the retired pensioners of State of Punjab.

• The petitioners prayed for the restoration of commuted portion after 12 years.  They challenged Rule 11.1(2), claiming it as unconstitutional since the commuted pension is recovered in about 11.5 years, but deductions continue for 15 years.

• The recovery period of 15 years is arbitrary, excessive, and violates constitutional rights. The life expectancy and other factors (e.g., higher interest rates) were not considered when extending the recovery period from 12 to 15 years in 1998.

• In the case it was the position of the respondent Department: Pension commutation is voluntary and governed by the rules in force at the time of application.

• Employees voluntarily have accepted the conditions and are estopped from challenging them later.

• Decisions were based on recommendations of various Pay Commissions and actuarial calculations.

• The Court in its judgment while dismissing the cases of main suit 9426 of 2023 and 807 connected petitions observed that

• 1. Previous judgments have upheld the 15-year restoration period as reasonable and non-arbitrary.

• 2. Matters related to pension commutation involve complex actuarial calculations and policy decisions.

• 3. The court will not interfere unless there is evident arbitrariness.

• 4. The court dismissed all petitions, finding no evidence of arbitrariness.

• 5. The State Govt agreed to review the restoration period and related factors through an expert committee.

• It is a major set back to the cases remaining in other states at present.