# Radheyshyam Shukla & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19031 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radheyshyam-shukla-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53226
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article
226 - Judicial review - Commutation of
pension - 15 years formula - Policy
matter
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Common Cause's case relied upon -
Commutation of pension is an option
and is exercised by choice and it is not
mandatory
or
compulsory
to
seek
commutation and being a policy matter
cannot be subjected to judicial review
except being mala fide or extremely
arbitrary or contrary to Statute or
irrational. (Para 12)

B. Service Law - UP Civil Pension
Commutation Rules, 1941 - Pension -
Option of commutation - Benefit of lump
sum amount after commutation was
received
-
15
years
formula
was
adopted - Effect - Notification extended
the
period
to
15
years
-
Validity
challenged - Held, this neither prejudices
the rights of any of the parties nor confers
any undue advantage upon any party -
Only on ground that government has
received some more amount to the
amount commuted way back 12 years to
15 years ago would itself not be a ground
to quash the notification not being an
irrational decision, even rate of interest if
calculated would be on very low side -
Ashok Kumar Agrawal's case relied upon.
(Para 15 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereto and there being a clear stipulation in
the suspension order for submission of a
certificate and no such certificate having
been given by the petitioner consequently
no direction can be issued for payment of
subsistence allowance.

42. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is partly
allowed. Impugned order dated 16.09.2020,
a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the
petition,
is
quashed.
Punishment
of
withholding one increment permanently
and censure would now stand imposed on
the petitioner with effect from 16.09.2000.
Consequences to follow.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 580
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 19031 of 2024
alongwith other connected cases

Radheyshyam Shukla & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nawal Kishor Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article
226 - Judicial review - Commutation of
pension - 15 years formula - Policy
matter
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Common Cause's case relied upon -
Commutation of pension is an option
and is exercised by choice and it is not
mandatory
or
compulsory
to
seek
commutation and being a policy matter
cannot be subjected to judicial review
except being mala fide or extremely
arbitrary or contrary to Statute or
irrational. (Para 12)

B. Service Law - UP Civil Pension
Commutation Rules, 1941 - Pension -
Option of commutation - Benefit of lump
sum amount after commutation was
received
-
15
years
formula
was
adopted - Effect - Notification extended
the
period
to
15
years
-
Validity
challenged - Held, this neither prejudices
the rights of any of the parties nor confers
any undue advantage upon any party -
Only on ground that government has
received some more amount to the
amount commuted way back 12 years to
15 years ago would itself not be a ground
to quash the notification not being an
irrational decision, even rate of interest if
calculated would be on very low side -
Ashok Kumar Agrawal's case relied upon.
(Para 15 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashok Kumar Agrawal & ors. Vs U.O.I.& anr.,
2025:AHC:6439-DB

2. 'Common Cause' A Registered Society &
ors.Vs U.O.I.; (1987) 1 SCC 142

3. Forum Of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs
U.O.I. & anr., AIRONLINE, 2019 DEL 508

4. R. Gandhi Vs U.O.I.& anr.; (1999) Supp. 1
SCR

5. Welfare Association Of Absorbed Central
Government Employees in Public Enterprises Vs
U.O.I.& ors.; (1991) 2 SCC 265

6. Bharat Petrolium Corp. Ltd. Ex. Employees
Association & ors.Vs Chairman and Managing
Director Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd.
Bombay & ors.; (1993) 3 SCALE 424

7. T.R. Single & ors.Vs St. of Pun. & ors.; (2003)
2 ILR Punjab and Haryana 254
3 All. Radheshyam Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard S/Sri Nawal Kishor Mishra,
Praveen Tiwari, Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,
Rajesh Tripathi, Vijay Kumar Rai, Ram
Krishna Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Pashant Singh, Anurag Shukla, Satish
Chandra
Tiwari,
Brijendra
Kumar
Srivastava, Suresh Singh, Rajesh Kumar,
Vinod Kumar Singh, Chandra Bhan Gupta,
Chheda
Lal
Verma,
Rajnish
Kumar
Srivastava, Anil Kumar Sharma and Ms.
Durga
Tiwari,
learned
counsels
for
petitioners, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi
and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned
A.C.S.C. for State along with other
connected writ petitions.

2. This is bunch of writ petitions.
All the petitioners have retired many years
ago from the U.P. Government of Higher
Education Department and are receiving
pension and they have received benefits of
a lump sum amount by Commutating their
respective pension under Uttar Pradesh
Civil Pension Commutation Rules, 1941.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved
that their commutation amount has already
recovered in about 10 to 12 years, however,
by
an
Office
Memorandum
dated
08.12.2008, recovery from pension is
directed to continue up to 15 years and as
such the government has received much
more amount than it was commuted. All the
writ petitioners have challenged the said
Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2008 on
similar ground that according to their
contention, the commutation amount was
not loan, therefore, the exact amount could
only be recovered and not more.

4. Learned counsels for petitioners
have also argued that there is no provision
that by way of an Office Memorandum
dated 08.12.2008, number of years to
recover commutation value could be
determined upto 15 years, without any
basis and otherwise also it was excessive
and arbitrary.

5. This Court has earlier asked the
counsels for petitioners to go through a
recent judgement passed by Division Bench
of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar
Agrawal and 48 others versus Union of
India and another, 2025:AHC:6439-DB,
wherein similar arguments were rejected in
regard to petitioners therein i.e. employees
of Punjab National Bank. For reference the
relevant
part
thereof
is
mentioned
hereinafter :-

"Having
accepted
such
offer, a binding contract comes into
existence between the employee
and the employer as per which the
original pension is to be restored
after 15 years. Having acquiesced
to the commutation policy with
open eyes, it is not open for the
retiring employee to contend later
that the period of restoration of full
pension be reduced from 15 years
to 10 years. Whether or not the
lumpsum amount gets equalised on
expiry of 10 years or 11 year is not
decisive or material. What is
material is the nature of obligation
which enures upon the parties when
the retiring employee accepts the
provision
of
commutation
of
pension. The employee with his
open eyes having availed the
policy, cannot subsequently turn
around or seek modification in its
terms. The argument that the table
or the figures were not adequately
disclosed, is also not acceptable,
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inasmuch as the chart specifies the
manner in which the commutation
is to be fixed and the period after
which the original pension is to be
restored. In case, the employees
had any misgivings about it, they
could have sought appropriate
clarification before accepting the
offer. Once, the petitioners have
acquiesced to the policy and
accepted the offer, their subsequent
attempt to resile or seek change in
its computation would clearly be
impermissible.
The writ petition lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
The view taken by us
clearly finds support from the
adjudication made by the Supreme
Court in "Common Cause", A
Registered Society And Others Vs.
Union of India, (1987) 1 Supreme
Court Cases, 142, R. Gandhi Vs.
Union of India And Others, (1999)
8 SCC 106 as well the judgment of
Delhi High Court in Forum Retired
IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union
of India & Another, 2019 SCC
Online Del 6610 and Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Shila Devi
Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No.
9426 of 2023. "

6. In regard to above judgment,
learned counsels for petitioners have
submitted that in their case there was no
contract or specific regulation in regard to
period of 15 years for the purpose of return
of commuted amount.

7. Per contra, learned counsels for
State have supported the impugned order
and referred that issue has already been
settled by the Supreme Court in 'Common
Cause' A Registered Society and others
Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 142.

8. I have considered the above
submission and perused the record.

9. It is not under much dispute that
all petitioners have got benefit of a lump
sum amount after commutation of their
respective pension at the time when they
respectively
attained
the
age
of
superannuation
and
pension
was
determined. Relevant Rules of Uttar
Pradesh Civil Pension Commutation Rules,
1941 are reproduced hereinafter :-

"4. उक्त दनयम-3 के प्रावधानों तथा
एतादस्मन पिात दवदनदिाष्ट शतों के अध्यधीन और
प्रभाव को पूरा करने के दलए बजट प्रावधान अदस्तत्व
के ..........भी, दकसी सरकारी सेवक दजसको ये
दनयम लागू होते है, को पेंशन, जो दसदवल, दनयमावली
के अधीन उसको स्वीकृत दकया गया है, के 40% से
अनदधक दकसी भाग के एकमुश्त अिायगी के दलए
रादशकृत करने की अनुमदत िी जा सकेगी, परन्तु
(क) दविेशू मुरा में है अतैः अप्रासांदगत है
अतैः मुदरत नहीं
(ख) जब पेंशन रूपये में सांिेय हो, तब
(I) रादशकरण के बाि पेंशन का
अवशेष दकसी व्यदक्त के मामलें में
20 रू० प्रदतमाह अब छठे वेतन
आयोग की सांस्तुदतयों के अनुसार
रू० 2100/- से कम नहीं होगा,
तथा
(II) साधारणतया रादशकृत मूल्य
नीचे दवदनदिाष्ट उद्देश्यों में से एक या
अदधक पर व्यय दकया जाएगा,
यथा-
(1) गृह यह गृहस्थल का सदन्नमााण
पुनादनमााण या क्रय
(2) ऋण का पररसमापन
(3) बच्चो या आश्र्तों की दशक्षा
(4) दववाह सम्बन्धी व्यय, और
3 All. Radheshyam Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
(5) दकसी व्यवसाय या उपक्रम को
प्रारम्भ करना।
परन्तु यह और दक पूवावती परन्तुक
के खण्ड क तथा ख के प्रयोजनों के
दलए पेंशन की धनरादश की सांगणना
करने में इसमें भारत या दकसी अऩ्य
सरकार के राजस्व से आवेिक को
सांिेय दकसी अन्य स्थायी पेंशन या
पेंशनरो के रादशकृत भाग को जोडा
जा सकेगा।
दटप्पणी- ऐसे सरकारी सेवक, दजसे
1 अप्रैल, 1948 को या के बाि
भती दकया गया है, तथा सरकारी
सेवक, जो उस दतदथ के पहले से
सेवा में थे दकन्तु दजसने दनयम 16
के प्रथम परन्तुक के अधीन 40%
रादश अांशिायी भदवष्य दनदध पेंशन
बीमा दनयमावली, 1948 का
चुनाव दकया है, को इस दनयम के
अधीन तथा दवदहत पेंशन के आधे से
अनादधक दकसी भाग के बिले उस
परन्तुक के अधीन उसे सांिेय
वास्तदवक पेंशन के 40% से
अनादधक दकसी भाग की एकमुश्त
अिायगी के दलए रादशकृत करने की
अनुमदत िी जा सकेगी, यदि वह उस
दनयमावली के दनयम 19 के प्रथम
परन्तुक के अधीन अपने को वास्तव
में सांिेय पेंशन को आहररत करने का
चुनाव करता है।
(2) उ०प्र० उिारीकृत पेंशन
दनयमावली, 1961 के अध्यधईन,
सरकारी सेवक के मामले में, उसको
वास्तव में सांिेय पेशन के भाग, दजसे
एकमुश्त अिायगी के दलए रादशकृत
दकया जा सकता है, का दनधाारण
उक्त दनयमावली के दनयम 9 के
अनुसार दकया जाएगा।
5. साधारणतया दसदवल सेवा
दवदनयम के अनुच्छेि 353 के
अधीन स्वीकृत अनुकम्पा भिा के
रादशकरण को अनुज्ञात दकया
जाएगा, दकन्तु राज्य सरकार ऐसे
भिा के रादशकरण को स्वीकृत कर
सकेगी, यदि उसे समाधान है दक
रादशकरण रादशकरणकताा के पररवार
के स्थायी लाभ के दलए होगा।
6. जब तक अन्यथा दनिेश न दिया
जाये, आवेिन-पत्र इस दनयमावली
के भाग िो में वदणात प्रदक्रया के
अनुसार दनम्नदलदखत को सम्बोदधत
दकये जायेंगे-
(क) ऐसे पेंशनभोदगयों के मामले जो
भारतीय कोषागारों से अपनी पेंशन
आहररत, करते हो या जो ऐसे
कालोनी के, दजनका कोई लेखा
महालेखाकार, केन्रीय राजस्व में हो,
दनवासी होते हुए स्थानीय कोषागारों
से अपनी पेंशन आहररत करते हों,
यथादस्थदत, राज्य सरकार को या
रादशकरण कराने की स्वीकृदत िेने के
दलए सशक्त प्रादधकारी को; और
(ख) समस्त अन्य पेंशन भोदगयों के
मामले में, भारत के उच्चायुक्त को।

*[7. (1) कोई रादशकरण तब तक
स्वीकृत नहीं दकया जायेगा जब तक
दक पेंशनभोगी ने सक्षम दचदकत्सीय
प्रादधकारी से इस आशय का एक
प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं कर दिया है
दक उसका शारीररक स्वास्थ्य तथा
जीवन काल की प्रत्यासा ऐसी है जो
रादशकरण को न्यायोदचत ठहराये।
भारत में सांिेय पेंशन के सम्बन्ध में
राज्य सरकार या रादशकरण स्वीकताा
प्रादधकारी को भी हो, अपने
स्वदववेक
दनणाय
पर
िूसरा
दचदकत्सीय प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने
की अपेक्षा कर सकेगी या
दचदकत्सीय पररषि् के समक्ष पेंशन
भोगी को उपदस्थत होने का दनिेश िे
सकेगी।
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[परन्तु दचदकत्सा परीक्षा और सक्षम
दचदकत्सा प्रादधकारी से प्रमाण-पत्र
प्रस्तुत करना आवश्यक नहीं होगा,
जहााँ पेंशनभोगी, दजनमें यह पेंशन
भोगी है जो स्वेच्छा से, अदनवाया
रूप से या अशक्त होने पर सेवादनवृि
हुआ हो. अपने/अपनी सेवादनवृदत के
दिनाांक से या पेंशन भुगतान आिेश
के जारी होने के दिनाांक से, इसमें जो
भी पिातवतती हो, एक वषा के
भीतर दवदहत प्रपत्र 'कक' में
रादशकरण के दलए आवेिन-पत्र
प्रस्तुत करें।
(2) यदि आवेिक अपनी दचदकत्सा
परीक्षा के सम्बन्ध में पूछे गये दकसी
दलदखत या मौदखक प्रश्न के उिर में
अपनी जानकारी में ऐसा कोई कथन
करता है दजसे दमथ्या पाया जाये या
दकसी तादत्वक तथ्य को जानबूझ कर
दछपाता है तो, यथादस्थदत राज्य
सरकार या रादशकरण स्वीकृत करने
के दलए सशक्त प्रादधकारी वास्तदवक
भुगतान दकये जाने के पूवा दकसी भी
समय ऐसी स्वीकृदत करे रद्द कर
सकता है और ऐसे दकसी कथन या
तथ्य के दछपाने को दसदवल सदवास
रेगुलेशन्स के अनुच्छेि 351 के
प्रयोजनाथा गम्भीर किाचार भी माना
जायेगा।
'[8. रादशकरण पर सांिेय एकमुश्त
धनरादश वह धनरादश होगी। दजसे
राष्ट्रपदत द्वारा दवदहत सारणी या
आारदणयों या वतामान मूल्य के
अनुसार लेखा अदधकारी द्वारा
स्वीकृत की जायें। इस दनयम के
प्रयोजन, के दलए दचदकत्सीय की
आयु मामले में ऐसी आयु मानी
जायेगी जो वास्तदवक आयु से कम
नहीं है, जैसा दक प्रमादणत करने वाले
दचदकत्सीय प्रादधकारी दनिेश िें।।
दफर भी दनयम-7 के उप-दनयम (1)
परन्तुक के अन्तगात आने वाले
मामलों में अथाात् ऐसे रादशकरण के
मामले में, दजसमें दचदकत्सा परीक्षा
आवश्यक नहीं है, लेखा अदधकारी
से रादशकरण कराने पर िेय एकमुश्त
धनरादश पर ररपोटा मााँगना आवश्यक
नहीं होगा। उक्त धनरादश की गणना
रादशकरण स्वीकृत करने के दलए
सक्षम प्रादधकारी द्वारा अपने स्तर पर
ऊपर दनदिाष्ट वतामान मूल्य की
साररणी
या
साररदणयों
और
दवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाालयाध्यक्ष
द्वारा
सभी प्रकार से पूणा आवेिन-पत्र की
प्रादप्त के दिनाांक के पिात् पड़ने वाले
अगले जन्म के दिनाांक को पेंशनभोगी
की आयु के अनुसार की जायेगी।
लेखादधकारी उक्त प्रादधकारी से
स्वीकृदत आिेश प्राप्त करने के पिात्
सम्बद्ध कोषागार को भुगतान के दलए
प्रादधकार जारी करने के पूवा
रादशकरण के मूल्य की गणना की
शुद्धता की जााँच करेगा और यह भी
िेखेगा द़ि रादशकृत भाग पेंशन के
'[40%] से अदधक' न हो।
9. ऐसे मामलों में, दजनमें आवेिनपत्र राज्य सरकार को दनयम 6 के
खण्ड (क) के अधीन रादशकरण
स्वीकृत करने के दलए सशक्त
प्रादधकारी को सम्बोदधत हो,
एकमुश्त धनरादश रुपयों में िेय होगी।
------- एकमुश्त धनरादश के
सपररवतान के दलए, जहााँ सपररवतान
का प्रश्न उत्पन्न हो, दवदनयम िर ऐसी
िर होगी जो दनयम-10 में
उदल्लदखत दिनाांक पर लागू हों।
10. (1) दनयम 7 के उप-दनयम
(1) के परन्तुक के अधीन आने
वाले
मामलों
को
छोड़कर,
रादशकरण, जब स्वीकृत हो जाये,
आिेश में दवदनदिाष्ट दकये जानें वाले
दिनाांक से, जो साधारणतया आिेश
के दिनाांक से पन्रह दिन पिात् का
दिनाांक होगा प्रभावी होगा और
3 All. Radheshyam Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
समस्त गणना उस दिनाांक के दनिेश
से की जायेगी।
दटप्पणी-दवशेष मामलों में स्वीकृदत
प्रादधकारी इस दनयम में उदल्लदखत
दिनाांक से पूवा के दकसी दिनाांक से,
दकन्तु यह स्वीकृत आिेश के दिनाांक
से पूवा का नहीं होगा, रादशकरण की
अनुमदत िे सकता है। तब समस्त
गणना ऐसे पूवावती दिनाांक से की
जायेगी।
(2) दनयम 7 के उप-दनयम (1) के
परन्तुक के अधीन मामलों में, अथाात्
दबना दचदकत्सा परीक्षा के पेंशन के
रादशकरण के मामलों में रादशकरण
उस दिनाांक से प्रभावी होगा जब सभी
प्रकार
से
पूणा
आवेिन-पत्र
दवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाालयाध्यक्ष के पास
पहुाँचे और समस्त गणना उस दिनाांक
के दनिेश से और दनयम-8 के
अनुसार की जायेगी।
11. (1) दनयम 7 के उप-दनयम
(1) के परन्तुक के अधीन मामलों
को छोड़कर पेंशनभोगी यदि वह ऐसा
चाहे, यथादस्थदत, राज्य सरकार या
रादशकरण स्वीकृत करने के दलए
सशक्त प्रादधकारी या भारत के
उच्चायुक्त को दलदखत नोदटस द्वारा,
दजससे दक वह उस दिनाांक के जब
रादशकरण अदन्तम हो जाये, पूवा उक्त
प्रादधकारी के पास पहुाँचे, अपने
आवेिन-पत्र को वापस ले सकता है।
(2) यदि वह खण्ड (1) में
दवदनदिाष्ट अवदध के भीतर अपना
आवेिन वापस नहीं लेता तो
रादशकरण अदन्तम हो जायेगा, पेंशन
के रादशकृत भाग को प्राप्त करने का
अदधकार समाप्त हो जायेगा और
रादशकृत मूल्य को प्राप्त प्राप्त करने
का हक उस दतदथ से प्रोि््‌भूत होगा,
दजससे रादशकरण प्रभावी हों।
रादशकृत
मूल्य
का
भुगतान,
सथासम्भव, उस दतदथ से दकया
जायेगा जब से रादशकरण प्रभावी हो,
दकन्तु वास्तदवक भुगतान की दतदथ
चाहे जो हो, सांिि धनरादश तथा
पेंशन पर प्रभाव नहीं होगा, मानों
रादशकृत मूल्य उस दतदथ को अिा
दकया गया था, दजसको रादशकरण
अदन्तम हो गया था। यदि पेंशन का
रादशकृत भाग उस दतदथ के बाि
आहररत दकया गया है दजस पर
रादशकरण आत्यदन्तक हो जाता है,
तो आहररत धनरादश को रादशकरण
में सांिेय धनरादश में कम कर दलया
जाएगा।
'[(3) दनयम-7 के उप-दनयम (1)
के परन्तुक के अधीन आने वाले
मामले में, पेंशनभोगी को अपना
आवेिन-पत्र वापस लेने का हक नहीं
होगा और रादशकरण उस दिनाांक को
अदन्तम हुआ समझा जोयगा जब
रादशकरण के दलये आवेिन-पत्र, जो
सभी
प्रकार
से
पूणा
हो,
दवभागाध्यक्ष/कायाालयाध्यक्ष को प्राप्त
हो जाये।
12. रादशकरण को दजसके दलए एक
बार आवेिन दकया गया था, स्वीकृत
दकया गया था तथा प्रभावी दकया
गया था, को दवखदण्डत नहीं दकया
जा सकता, अथाात् रादशकृत पेंशन के
भाग को उसके पांजीकृत भाग के
प्रदतिाय पर प्रत्यावदतात नही दकया
जा सकता।
[13. यदि पेंशनभोगी की मृत्यु
रादशकरण अदन्तम हो जाने के दिनाांक
या उसके पिात् दकन्तु रादशकरण का
मूल्य प्राप्त करने के पूवा हो आये, तो
इस मूल्य का भुगतान उसके दवदधक
उिरादधकारी को दकया जायेगा।
दटप्पणी-दनयम-7 के उप-दनयम (1)
के परन्तुक के अधीन आने वाले
दबना दचदकत्सा परीक्षा के रादशकरण
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
के मामलों में, रादशकरण उस दिनाांक
को अदन्तम हो जाता है जब उसका
पूणा
आवेिन-पत्र
दवभागाध्यक्ष/कायााल्याध्यक्ष
द्वारा
प्राप्त हो जाये। यदि ऐसे मामले में,
पेंशनभोगी की मृत्यु रादशकृत मूल्य
प्राप्त करने के पूवा उक्त दिनाांक हो या
उसके पिात् हो जाये तो इस मूल्य
का
भुगतान
उसके
दवदधक
उिरादधकारी को दकया जायेगा। "

10.
 As
referred
above,
an
opportunity was granted to petitioners that
they can committed their pension to get a
lump sum amount as and when their
respective pension was determined which
could preferably be used for the above
referred purposes (See Rule 4 of Rules
1941), though, none of petitioners have
declared that they have used said amount
for any of referred purpose and for any
ancillary purpose. Though the Court is not
entering into such dispute at this stage,
however, it has to be noted that purpose of
commutation
was
beneficiary
for
pensioners, so they could get a lump sum
amount to use it for their benefit and for
that some fixed amount to be deducted
from their pension upto certain years which
is now 15 years.

11. All the petitioners are guilty of
approaching this Court at the very belated
stage. The impugned notification is of year
2008 and they have approached this
Court in the year 2024 i.e. after more
than 16 years , probably being fence sitter
and since some other High Courts have
granted stay on further recovery when
pensioners of their State approached to
challenge number of years of recovery,
which was later on followed by this Court
and co-ordinate Benches have passed
certain interim orders.
12. the Supreme Court way back in
the year 1987 in case of of "Common
Cause" A Registered Society And Others
Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987
SCC (1) 142, has held that commutation of
pension is an option and is exercised by
choice and it is not mandatory or
compulsory to seek commutation and being
a policy matter cannot be subjected to
judicial review except being mala fide or
extremely arbitrary or contrary to Statute or
irrational and held that:-

"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"

13. Similarly a Division Bench of
High Court of New Delhi in Forum Of
Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) Vs. Union
of India and another, AIRONLINE, 2019
DEL 508, has considered similar argument
and
has
negated
it,
with
following
observations,
after
taking
note
of
recommendations of 6th Pay Commission
and other factors that :-

"We would want most
favourable
terms
for
the
pensioners, but there are restraints
and the field experts and not the
3 All. Radheshyam Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
Court is the best judge to evaluate
on
different
and
somewhat
conflicting factors that have to be
taken into consideration. This is
not to say that courts do not have
jurisdiction
and
aggrieved
pensioners/employees if they are
unjustly treated cannot be granted
relief, but for such interference
the Court should come to a firm
conclusion that a grave error had
crept in which makes the court's
interference absolute to do justice.
Interference in such matter can
result in creating all kinds of
problems and cascading effects as
these are highly complexed and
difficult
matters
requiring
balancing of various competing
interests, which would to some
extent include financial resources
available"

14. The Division Bench of this
Court in Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra)
has also taken note of above referred
judgments and declined the objections of
petitioners therein about fixing a period of
15 years to return commuted amount,
therefore, the principle laid in Ashok
Kumar Agrawal (supra) is also applicable
in present case and no circumstances exists
to take a different view.

15. The impugned notification is
being promulgated under the provisions of
1941 Rules, and has only prescribed the
method of commutation amount and period
thereof which is now 15 years and only on
ground that government has received some
more amount to the amount commuted way
back 12 years to 15 years ago would itself
not be a ground to quash the notification
not being an irrational decision, even rate
of interest if calculated would be on very
low side.

16. The Court also takes note that
in one of writ petitions, petitioners have
mentioned that they have paid in terms of
their commutation lump sum amount more
than, ranging from 1 to 7 lac but it would
itself not be a ground to quash any said
notification since they have not only taken
advantage of lump sum taken 12 or 15
years ago to spend on specific purposes as
described in Rules 1941 on a certain
undertaking and that they have not
disclosed whether such amount was used
for said purpose or any ancillary purpose. It
is not a case that due to return of commuted
amount till 15 years, the State has enriched
substantially.

17. The Court also takes note of
another judgment passed by Supreme Court
in R. Gandhi Vs. Union of India and
another, (1999) Supp. 1 SCR, wherein
Common Cause (supra) was followed that
"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" and accordingly, impugned
memorandum therein was upheld whereby
it was decided that the commuted pension
would be recovered for a period of 15
years. The Supreme Court has also
followed Common Cause (supra) in
Welfare
Association
Of
Absorbed
Central
Government
Employees
in
Public Enterprises Vs. Union of India
and others, (1991) 2 SCC 265 as well as
Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited
Ex. Employees Association and others
Vs. Chairman and Managing Director
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited
Bombay and others, (1993) 3 SCALE
424. (also see : T.R. Single and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others, (2003) 2 ILR
Punjab and Haryana 254, and Shila Devi
and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
and converted 807 petitions decided by
Punjab and Haryana High Court on
27.11.2024, wherein also policy of fixing
15 years for recovery of commuted part of
pension was upheld)

18. The Court also takes note that
commuted amount petitioners has range
from 12 lakh to 14 lakh and installment is
between 11,000/- and 14,000/- per month,
which is not exorbitant. The petitioners has
also not disclosed their respective pension
amount. It is also relevant to note that for
purpose of other benefits, pension amount is
considered without taking note of commuted
amount and accordingly, all writ petitions are
dismissed and correspondently interim orders
passed in all writ petitions are vacated.

19. A copy of this order be
communicated
to
Principal
Secretary
(Finance), Government of U.P. at Lucknow.

20. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 588
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 1043 of 2024

Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C Sitapur & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Digvijay Singh, Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law -U.P. Zamindar Abolition &
Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 171-The
dispute pertained to agricultural plots
recorded in the name of late Ruda Singh,
who died intestate in 1979- n 1984, a
revenue court vested his land with the
Gaon Sabha, declaring he had no legal
heirs-The petitioner, claiming to be his
nephew, challenged this much later during
consolidation
proceedings
starting
in
1995-The petitioner failed to challenge
the 1984 order in a timely manner-The
petitioner's
evidence
of
kinship(an
undated certificate by the gram pradhan)
lacked authenticity and corroborationThere were inconsistencies in his identity
,age and claims-He executed gift deeds in
favour of third parties soon after his name
was recorded, raising suspicion of land
grabbing-The
court
held
that
the
petitioner failed to establish any valid
relationship with Ruda Singh-The only
proof submitted (a pradhan certificate)
had
no
legal
value-Thus,
the
court
concluded that the findings of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation were based on
valid legal and factual reasoning.(Para 1
to 71)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the instant petition,
the relevant facts giving rise to the cause of
action to the petitioner are being noticed
hereinafter.

2. The dispute in question relates
to Plots No.100, 318 and 443 having a total
area of 4.3120 hectares, situate in village
Para, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur.
The aforesaid plots are part of Khata