AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74199 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3640 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harishchandra Pandey And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepesh Kumar Ojha,Prashant Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Shri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1, 4, 6 & 7, Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Shri Shardul Agrahari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 5. 2. The petitioners superannuated on the following dates:- Name of petitioners Date of superannuation Designation and Department Harish Chandra Pandey 25.01.2012 Assistant Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Dhananjay Prasad Pandey 07.06.2011 Assistant Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Mukti Nath Tiwari 30.08.2014 Junior Engineer-II in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Surendra Prasad 02.03.2013 Techincal Grade-II in 2 Pandey U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 3. At the time of their superannuation the petitioners’ opted for commutation of their pension. According to the petitioners’ the entire commuted amount has already been recovered prior to 15 years. There is no reason to continue the deductions from the pensions of the petitioners. In case deductions are continued till 15 years the recovery will exceed the commuted amounts’. 4. The scheme for commutation of pension contemplates the restoration of the pensions after 15 years of superannuation. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 23.07.1987 is extracted herein under:- “कार्याालर्या-ज्ञाप वि षर्याः पेंशन के राशिशकृ त भाग का से ाविन ृत्ति के 15 ष के उपरान्त पुनर्स्थाापन (रेर्स्थाटोरेशन)। उर प्रदेश त्तिलबरलाइज्ड पेंशन विनर्यामा ली, 1961 की व्र्या र्स्थाा के अनुसार प्रत्र्याेक से ाविन ृ सरकारी से क, उसे र्स्था ीकृ त की गर्याी पेंशन के एक तितहाई भाग से अनति2क 2नराशिश का राशिशकरण कर ा सकता है। इस व्र्या र्स्थाा के अन्तगत सम्बन्धिन्2त पेंशनर की पेंशन के राशिशकृ त भाग के बदले एक मुश्त 2नराशिश प्राप्त हो जाती है और राशिशकरण कराने के विदनाँक से उसकी पेंशन की 2नराशिश में से राशिशकृ त भाग के बराबर कमी करके शेष 2नराशिश पेंशन के रूप में आजी न भुगतान की जाती है। 2. पेंशन के इस राशिशकृ त भाग के पुनर्स्थाापन का मामला विपछले कई ष? से राज्र्या सरकार के वि चारा2ीन ा। इस वि षर्या पर सम्र्याक वि चारोपरान्त राज्र्यापाल महोदर्या ने आदेश प्रदान विकर्याे हैं विक ऐसे पेंशनर, जिजन्होंने अपनी पेंशन के एक भाग का राशिशकरण कर ार्याा ा, उनकी पेंशन के राशिशकृ त भाग को से ाविन ृत्ति के विदनाँक के 15 ष के 2 of 5 3 बाद विदनाँक 1-7-1987 से अ ा र्याविद 15 ष की अ ति2 1-7-1987 के बाद पूरी होती हो तो उस विदनाँक से पुनर्स्थााविपत कर विदर्याा जार्याे।” 5. As per the aforesaid Government Order dated 23.07.1987 the pension is liable to be restored only after a period of 15 years after the superannuation. The recovery will not cease prior 15 years, merely because the petitioners claim to have repaid the entire commuted amount. 6. The aforesaid terms of commutation of pension in the order dated 23.07.1987 are binding on the petitioners. The said recovery for a period of 15 years is a policy decision of the State which is a result of expert financial planning and has serious financial implications. Interference in such financial and policy matters of the State crafted by experts does not commend itself to acceptance by this Court. 7. The rationale for fixing the said time period for restoration of full pension, even though the actual recovery may be in excess of the commuted amount was examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of "Common Cause" A Registered Society and Others vs. Union of India reported at 1987 SCC (1) 142. 8. Common Cause (supra) while rationalising the lock in period of recovery stated that commutation of pension was optional and not mandatory and after recognizing the limitations of judicial review in such policy matters that:- 3 of 5 4 "Commutation brings about certain advantages. 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. Two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of commutation--(1) availability of a lump sum amount, and (2) the risk factor. Many State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15 years rule. This Court would not be justified in disturbing the 15 years formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned." 9. Thereafter the Supreme Court in R. Gandhi vs. Union of India and another reported at (1999) Supp. 1 SCR Common Cause (supra) reiterated the following proportions:- "the decision in Common Cause (supra) has been understood in all subsequent judgments of this Court as 15 years from the date of commutation and we are in respectful agreement with the same. This neither prejudices the rights of any of the parties nor confers any undue advantage upon any party." 10. The same proposition was enunciated by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 17819 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar Agarwal and 48 others vs. Union of India and another) decided on 15.01.2025. A learned Single Judge took the same view in Writ A No. 19031 of 2024 (Radheshyam Shukla and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) along with other companion writ petitions which was decided on 06.03.2025. 11. In the wake of the preceding discussion and the holdings of the constitutional courts the stand of petitioner that the deductions ought to stop since the commuted amount has been recovered is misconceived. The recovery of the commuted 4 of 5 5 amount is liable to continue till 15 years in adherence to the policy of commutation of pension. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Jaswant 5 of 5 Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad