1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26882-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4753 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Misra And 3 Others Respondent :- S.B.I. Thru. Its Chairman Corporate Centre Maharashtra And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Achal Gupta,Anil Kishore Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Saxena Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Achal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioners, who retired from the services of State Bank of India during the period 2010-2014, is that though the commutation amount paid at the time of retirement, without interest thereon, is fully recovered in 80 months, but the respondents are deducting the same from their monthly pension for a period of 180 months. Therefore, they have prayed for restoration of pension after recovery of commutation amount from their monthly pension in 80 months. 3. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following main reliefs: (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the provisions stating restoration period of 15 years in the State Bank of India Employees' Fund Rules vide file No.F.8/45/65-SB, dated 18th May, 1965, as amended by G.O. No. 269 dated 18.09.2014 issued by State Bank of India vide letter No. CDO/PM/16/SPL/1136 dated 15.09.2014 as contained in Annexure No.7 to this Writ Petition after summoning the records. 2 (b) By a suitable writ, order or direction or by a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus hold and declare that part of the provision of sub regulation (2) of Regulation 17 of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Regulations, 2014 to be ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India in so far as and only to the extent whereby it provides for Restoration of Pension to an employee only after expiry of a period of FIFTEEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMMUTATION and not immediately once the commuted value of the pension, is fully paid up either on expiry of 80 Months (in case if the Bank is not charging any interest) and 10-Year and 11-Months in case (if the Bank is charging simple interest on the commuted amount so paid to an employee); (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus for restoration of the commuted pension after expiry of 80-Months (in case if the Bank is not charging any interest) and 10-Year and 11-Months in case (if the Bank is charging simple interest on the commuted amount so paid to an employee) or at best 11 years instead of 15 years as provided in the G.O. dated 18.09.2014." 4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the Bank-respondents has stated that the question involved in the instant writ petition has already been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, presided by one of us (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) in respect of an employee of Bank of Baroda in Writ-A No. 12905 of 2024, Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Managing Director and the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2025. 5. Relevant excerpts of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 are reproduced as under:- "10. Punjab & Haryana High Court has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Common Cause" a registered society and others versus 3 Union of India: (1987) 1 SCC 142, which was a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by 'Common Cause', a registered society and three retired government servants challenging certain provisions of the Commutation of Pension Rules applicable to civilian and defence pensioners as per which when a pensioner commuted any part of his pension up to the authorised limit, his pension was reduced for the remaining part of his life by deducting the commuted portion from the monthly pension. Thus the Union of India recovered more than what was paid to the pensioners upon commutation. The petitioners had prayed for a direction that an appropriate scheme rationalising the provisions relating to commutation be brought into force. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that there has been a substantial improvement in the life expectancy of the people in India had not been refuted on behalf of the respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had suggested to the respondent in course of the hearing that in the changed situation then prevailing in the country, a new look should be given to the matter. In deference to the suggestion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Union of India agreed to restore the commuted portion of the pension in regard to all civilian employees at the age of seventy years or after fifteen years, whichever is later. Thereafter the following Rule was inserted in the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981:- "10 A. Restoration of Commuted Pension – "The commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the date the reduction of pension on account of commutation becomes operative in accordance with rule 6: Provided that when the commutation amount was paid on more than one occasion on account of upward revision of pension, the respective commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the respective date(s)" The petitioners contended that the commuted portion out of the pension is ordinarily recovered within about 12 years and, therefore, there is no justification for fixing the period at 15 years. Commutation brings about 4 certain advantages. Rejecting this contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "5….The commuting pensioner gets a lump- sum amount which ordinarily he would have received in course of a spread over period subject to his continuing to live. Thus, two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of commutation — (1) availability of a lump sum amount, and (2) the risk factor. Again many of the State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15 year rule. In this background, we do not think we would be justified in disturbing the 15-year formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned." The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that:- "9. In dealing with a matter of this nature, it is not appropriate to be guided by the example of life insurance; equally unjust it would be to adopt the interest basis. On the other hand, the conclusion should be evolved by relating it to the "years-of-purchase" basis. An addition of two years to the period necessary for the recovery on the basis of years of purchase justifies the adoption of the 15-year rule. That is more or less the basis which appears to be equitable…" (Emphasis added)" 13. We have to examine the challenge to the Regulation laying down the policy of fixing 15 years duration for restoration of commuted pension on the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. The Regulation fixing 15 years period for restoration of full pension has been framed by the Bank of Baroda. Matters related to commutation of pension are complex affairs involving vexed issues traversing diverse field which calls for application of specialized expertise. It is a settled position that in such matters the Court would venture only in case of manifest and apparent arbitrariness. 15. Moreover, the petitioner availed of the benefit of commutation of pension in the year 2013, without raising any objection to the stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension and, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of 5 the Regulation which provides for restoration of full pension after 15 years since its commutation." 6. In the case at hand, the petitioners have availed of the benefit of commutation at the time of their respective retirement from the services of the State Bank of India without raising any objection to the stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension and therefore, the petitioners are estopped from questioning the validity of the Regulation which provides for restoration of full pension after 15 years since the date of commutation. That apart, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed in the aforesaid writ petition has been challenged in the higher forum. 7. Since the facts of the instant case are similar to those of Writ-A No. 12905 of 2024, which petition was dismissed on 11.02.2025, we do not find any reason to take a different view and, therefore, for the same very reasons as observed in the judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 12905 of 2024, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Fahim/- Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench