# CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR

- **Citation:** [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1034
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.1681 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, K. M. Joseph
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-general-manager-gujarat-telecom-circle-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-ors-v-33615
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Service Law:
Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) - Delayed payment -
Interest for - Entitlement to the employee who was paid provisional
pension during pendency of vigilance/disciplinary case - Vigilance
clearance before the date of retirement - Application for CVP made
after over three years from the date of retirement - Claim for
interest on the CVP from the date of retirement - Denied by
Department/employer - Administrative Tribunal as well as High
Court directed grant of interest - On appeal, held: A claim for
interest with regard to CVP may lie when an application has been
made in time u/r. 13(1) of Commutation Rules and payment is
delayed - Question as to payment of interest would arise based on
the date of application and the reasonableness of the time taken in
processing it and the arbitrariness in a particular case in delaying
the matter - The employee was precluded from applying u/r. 13(1)
as he was not getting superannuation pension - He was getting a
provisional pension - He was not precluded from making
application u/r. 13(3) - In view of acceptance of provisional pension and failure to make application u/r. 13(3), the employee could
not have been granted interest on CVP from the date of retirement -
Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 -
rr. 4, 12, 13(1) and (3) - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972 - rr. 9 and 69.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the Central Civil Services (Commutation of
Pension) Rules, 1981 there is no provision which contemplates
payment of interest on delayed payment of Commuted Value of
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1034
1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
Pension (CVP). Office Memorandum dated 05.10.1999 does not
contemplate the grant of interest, when CVP is paid belatedly.
But on the other hand, the order does not declare that no
interest shall be payable when CVP is paid belatedly. [Para 20]
[1048-G-H]
2. Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) is inter-linked with
pension. Pension is not a bounty. It is a legal as well as a
fundamental right of a Government servant to receive his
pension. It is not an act of grace by the employer but it is the
right of the Government servant who has put in the required
number of years of service. This is subject to Rule 9 of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 under which there
is power to withhold and recover part or whole of the pension. In
regard to pension, it is beyond dispute that for belated payment
of pension, interest can be ordered to be paid. [Para 21]
[1049-A-C]
3. Commutation of pension is nothing but payment of a
portion of the pension calculated on a formula provided in the
Rules, the result of which is that the employer will be absolved
from payment of the pension to the extent it is commuted and
the employee will receive the value of commuted pension in a
lump sum at one go. No doubt after a certain number of years (15
years) the full pension gets restored. Therefore, CVP flows out
of his right to receive pension. In fact, it is a part of his pension
which is paid in lump sum to the employee. It is entirely optional
for the officer to commute a part of his pension. [Paras 22 and 23]
[1049-C-E]
4. The Commutation Rules declare the categories of
pension which would qualify for commutation. Persons who fall in
Rule 12 of the Commutation Rules, without undergoing any
medical examination can apply for commutation, as provided in
Rule 13 of Commutation Rules, which includes a person who
receives superannuation pension. If such a person applies under
Rule 13 of Commutation Rules , well within the time, he is
indeed conferred a legal right under the Statutory Rules to
receive commuted pension. It does not lie in the mouth of
Government which is excepted to act as a model employer to sit
over the papers and delay the sanctioning or the payment of the
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S

## Text

_Characters 0–39,342 of 67,188. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39342 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS.
v.
MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.1681 of 2019)
MARCH 08, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) - Delayed payment -
Interest for - Entitlement to the employee who was paid provisional
pension during pendency of vigilance/disciplinary case - Vigilance
clearance before the date of retirement - Application for CVP made
after over three years from the date of retirement - Claim for
interest on the CVP from the date of retirement - Denied by
Department/employer - Administrative Tribunal as well as High
Court directed grant of interest - On appeal, held: A claim for
interest with regard to CVP may lie when an application has been
made in time u/r. 13(1) of Commutation Rules and payment is
delayed - Question as to payment of interest would arise based on
the date of application and the reasonableness of the time taken in
processing it and the arbitrariness in a particular case in delaying
the matter - The employee was precluded from applying u/r. 13(1)
as he was not getting superannuation pension - He was getting a
provisional pension - He was not precluded from making
application u/r. 13(3) - In view of acceptance of provisional pension and failure to make application u/r. 13(3), the employee could
not have been granted interest on CVP from the date of retirement -
Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 -
rr. 4, 12, 13(1) and (3) - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972 - rr. 9 and 69.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the Central Civil Services (Commutation of
Pension) Rules, 1981 there is no provision which contemplates
payment of interest on delayed payment of Commuted Value of
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1034
1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
Pension (CVP). Office Memorandum dated 05.10.1999 does not
contemplate the grant of interest, when CVP is paid belatedly.
But on the other hand, the order does not declare that no
interest shall be payable when CVP is paid belatedly. [Para 20]
[1048-G-H]
2. Commuted Value of Pension (CVP) is inter-linked with
pension. Pension is not a bounty. It is a legal as well as a
fundamental right of a Government servant to receive his
pension. It is not an act of grace by the employer but it is the
right of the Government servant who has put in the required
number of years of service. This is subject to Rule 9 of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 under which there
is power to withhold and recover part or whole of the pension. In
regard to pension, it is beyond dispute that for belated payment
of pension, interest can be ordered to be paid. [Para 21]
[1049-A-C]
3. Commutation of pension is nothing but payment of a
portion of the pension calculated on a formula provided in the
Rules, the result of which is that the employer will be absolved
from payment of the pension to the extent it is commuted and
the employee will receive the value of commuted pension in a
lump sum at one go. No doubt after a certain number of years (15
years) the full pension gets restored. Therefore, CVP flows out
of his right to receive pension. In fact, it is a part of his pension
which is paid in lump sum to the employee. It is entirely optional
for the officer to commute a part of his pension. [Paras 22 and 23]
[1049-C-E]
4. The Commutation Rules declare the categories of
pension which would qualify for commutation. Persons who fall in
Rule 12 of the Commutation Rules, without undergoing any
medical examination can apply for commutation, as provided in
Rule 13 of Commutation Rules, which includes a person who
receives superannuation pension. If such a person applies under
Rule 13 of Commutation Rules , well within the time, he is
indeed conferred a legal right under the Statutory Rules to
receive commuted pension. It does not lie in the mouth of
Government which is excepted to act as a model employer to sit
over the papers and delay the sanctioning or the payment of the
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
CVP. Therefore in a case where Rule 13(3) of Commutation Rules
applies and the Government servant who is due to retire on
superannuation applies for getting CVP along with pension
papers, prior to the date of his retirement as provided and he
actually retires on superannuation and his application is within
time, the CVP must be paid immediately after the retirement.
[Paras 29 and 30] [1053-F-H; 1054-A-B]
5. The applicant had moved application on 01.11.2012 where
he sought commutation of pension without medical examination.
He showed his date of retirement as 31.07.2008. He sought the
maximum admissible fraction as the proposed commutation. On
the basis of same, the appellant was admittedly sanctioned CVP
in December, 2012. If the application dated 01.11.2012 is taken
as the basis of sanctioning of the CVP then there can be no ground
at all to give any interest as CVP has been given within a
reasonable time. [Para 37] [1057-C-E]
6. There are three situations. The first category is where
the pension is finalized immediately upon retirement and on the
basis of the application, the commutation as permissible subject
to the limit of forty percent, is ordered. The second category is
where there is provisional pension granted under Rule 64 of
Pension Rules. In such a case also commutation is permissible
but of the provisional pension again subject to the limit under
Rule 5 of Commutation Rules. In the third category where
provisional pension is sanctioned on account of pendency of
judicial or departmental proceeding Rule 4 of Commutation Rules
applies and it forbids the commutation of "the provisional
pension" granted under Rule 69 of Pension Rules. Since, in the
present case the applicant was admittedly sanctioned provisional
pension, while the provisional pension was in place, the
applicant could not have sought commutation of the provisional
pension granted under Rule 69 of Pension Rules in view of the
embargo against such commutation contained in Rule 4 of
Commutation Rules. [Para 35] [1056-C-F]
7. A perusal of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules would show
that Government had a right to withhold the pension or gratuity
or both either in full or in part or withdraw a pension in full or in
part either permanently or for the specified period. Government
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
is also authorized to order recovery from pension or gratuity of
the whole or in part of any pecuniary loss caused, if in any
departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty
of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service which includes service after re-employment. Thereafter,
sub-rule 9(6) of Pension Rules deals with what constitutes when
a departmental or a judicial proceeding will be deemed to
commence. Judicial proceedings are divided into two categories.
First category is a criminal proceeding. Second category is civil
proceeding. As far as civil proceeding is concerned, it is deemed
to be instituted when a plaint is presented. In other words, upon
presentation of a plaint in a civil case judicial proceeding
commences. In the case of a criminal proceeding by the deeming
provision, it is deemed to have been instituted for the purpose of
Rule 9 when the complaint or report of a police officer is made,
but that is not sufficient. In a case where a complaint or a report
of a police officer is made to a Court, it should culminate in
cognizance being taken by the Magistrate, for the department to
contend that the date of the complaint or report is to be the date
of institution of the proceedings. [Para 43] [1059-C-F]
8. It is not correct to say that there was a departmental
proceeding pending by virtue of the fact that an order of
suspension was passed within the meaning of Rule 9(6). While
the applicant was placed under suspension, in the year 1997, it is
equally indisputable that the said suspension was revoked in the
year 1999 well before the date of superannuation of the
applicant. It is not the law that to constitute a departmental
proceeding that a Government servant has been placed under
suspension at some point of time of his career. What is
contemplated is that there must be a suspension when the
applicant would have otherwise retired on superannuation. In the
present case the suspension stood revoked several years prior
to his date of superannuation. Therefore, the suspension which
was subsequently revoked cannot constitute suspension within
the meaning of Rule 9(6)(b) of the Pension Rules. [Para 39] [1057F-H; 058-A-B]
9. It is true that well before the retirement of the applicant,
the agency which had no doubt conducted a trap against the
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
applicant, had itself found that there was no material in view of
subsequent developments. It could be said that this is a case
where the applicant was exonerated by the agency well before
the date of his retirement. No doubt this is not a case where the
applicant has been acquitted honourably after trial. In fact, there
was never a trial and the case was not sent up for trial in view of
the submission of A-summary. [Para 42] [1059-A-B]
10. A claim for interest in regard to CVP may lie when an
application has been made in time under Rule 13(3) of
Commutation Rules and the payment is delayed. But in a case
where application is made under Rule 13(1) of Commutation
Rules which can be made within a period of one year from the
date of retirement, the same would have to be processed and
undoubtedly at the earliest it must be brought to its logical
culmination as per the rules. But certainly, in a case falling under
Rule 13(1) there can be no question of paying interest from the
date of retirement as the application itself is predicated after the
date of retirement. No doubt the question as to payment of
interest even in such cases would arise based on the date of
application and the reasonableness of the time taken in
processing it and the arbitrariness in a particular case in
delaying the matter. [Para 45] [1060-E-G]
11. In the present case the applicant has no case even that
he made an application within the meaning of Rule 13(3) of the
Commutation Rules as contemplated before three months of his
retirement. Nothing stood in the way of the applicant applying
under Rule 13(3) of Commutation Rules apparently. If on the
other hand, there was any legal impediment which stood in the
way, then also he cannot claim the CVP on retirement. Without
having made such an application under the Commutation Rules,
it is clear that there can be no question of even becoming
entitled to commute pension w.e.f. first day following his
retirement. The Tribunal and the High Court have completely
overlooked the conspectus of the Rules. The direction to pay
interest on the CVP, as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of
retirement from 01.08.2008 is clearly erroneous. Rule 13(1) of
Commutation Rules enables a person who is in receipt of a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
pension under Rule 12 of Commutation Rules, to apply after
retirement but within one year thereof for CVP. It is true that the
applicant was not in receipt of any pension under Rule 12 and
therefore, he could not have applied under Rule 13(1) of
Commutation Rules. This is for the reason that as per order dated
04.08.2008, he was to be given provisional pension which was
under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules. The applicant, however,
proceeded to accept the provisional pension. It is true that the
effect of the order dated 04.08.2008 of the sanctioning of the
provisional pension under Rule 69 of Pension Rules, was that he
was precluded from applying for commuting the provisional
pension, in view of Rule 4 of Commutation Rules and on the other
hand, as he was not in receipt of superannuation pension, he could
not have filed an application under Rule 13(1) of Commutation
Rules. Having issued order dated 04.08.2008, the effect of which
should interest be ordered on the basis that the applicant was
prevented from applying for CVP under Rule 13(1) of
Commutation Rules. The applicant was not precluded from
making any application under Rule 13(3) of Commutation Rules.
Had he done so, his claim for interest from the date of
retirement could have been considered under Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution. The applicant did not challenge the order
dated 04.08.2008 and he continued to accept the provisional
pension sanctioned thereunder. There could be no question of
granting interest from the date of retirement in view of the
absence of any application under Rule 13(3) of Commutation
Rules. [Para 46] [1061-A-H; 1062-A-B]
S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Another
(2008) 3 SCC 44 : [2008] 1 SCR 395 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 1 SCR 395
 relied on
Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1681
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2016 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Writ Petition being Special Civil
Application No. 14400 of 2015.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Chiranjeev Johri, Ankur Rastogi, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, V. Balaji, Vijay Prakash, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment of the High Court in Special Civil Application filed
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellants
wherein appellants challenged the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").
The Tribunal by the impugned order quashed order dated 12.03.2013
and directed the appellants to pay interest at the rate applicable to the
Provident Fund deposits for the delay occurred in payment of DCRG
and Commuted Value of Pension (hereinafter referred to as the "CVP")
from 01.08.2008 till the date of payment.
2. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant"),
who filed the application before the Tribunal was granted provisional
pension by proceeding dated 04.08.2008. It reads as follows:-
"Sub: Retirement on superannuation of 31.7.2008 A/N-Cases of
officers of STS of Executive Grade (Ad-hoc) Regarding.
In accordance with BSNL New Delhi order No. 35/1/2007 Pers1 date 3.7.2008 and on approval of the competent authority, the
following officers of STS of Executive Grade) adhoc permanently
abscribed in BSNL are permitted to retire from BSNL services
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2007 (A/N).
S l.
No.
Name of Officer
StaffNo./ERP No.
Present
working
unit
1.
Sh. J.R. Sathwara, DE
10913/7005735
PGMTD
Ahm edabad
2.
Sh. B.P. Mishra, DE
12277/7021009
PGMTD
Vadodara
3.
Sh. P.P. Panchal, DE
11560/7016759
PGMTD
Vadodara
4.
Sh.N.N. Chaniyara, DE
13808/7025957
GMTD
-
Rajkot
5.
Sh. M.A. Patel,DE
11719/7021051
PGMTD
Surat
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
2. The BSNL C.O. ND has intimated that the vigilance clearance
in respect of Shri M.A. Paatel, (SL. No. 5) DE, O/o PGMTD
Surat has not received from Vigilance Cell of BSNL and therefore
the officer shall be given only provisional pension and the DCRG
and CVP shall be withheld till the conclusion of the vigilance/
disciplinary case as per CCS (Pension) rules 1972.
3. It may please be ensured that there is no Vig/ Disc case pending
or contemplated against any of the above officer mentioned above
as on the date of retirement. If any such case comes to notice,
only provisional pension shall be granted to the officer (s) and his
DCRG and CVP shall be withheld till the Vigilance clearance is
accorded.
4. Copy of the charge relinquishing report may be sent to this
office in respect of all concerned."
Though, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as
the "ACB") had registered a case against the applicant, the investigating
officer, however, had found no evidence against him. Investigating officer
had submitted A-summary before the Principal District Sessions, Judge,
Banaskantha, Palanpur, who refused to accept the summary. The State
of Gujarat thereupon challenged the order. On 30.03.2012 the criminal
revision application, filed by the State, was allowed according sanction
to the investigating officer to file A-summary report before the trial Court.
The applicant applied for interest on pensionary benefits i.e. DCRG and
CVP, which, was rejected, on the basis that the criminal revision petition,
filed by the State, against the order of the trial Court refusing to accept
the A-summary was disposed of and that after the order of the High
Court and Vigilance clearance the amounts were paid. He approached
the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed payment of interest. The High
Court in the writ petition, filed by the appellants, has reasoned that on
01.08.2008 (the applicant was to retire on superannuation on 31.07.2008),
there were no criminal proceedings against him. The High Court, inter
alia, held as follows:
"We are unable to accept the said submission as narrated
hereinabove. There were no criminal proceedings on 01.08.2008.
All that the High Court in its order has done directing the authority
below, which is produced at page no.219 at Para 14, which read
as under;
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL [K.M. JOSEPH, J.]
g
D
abad
D
ra
D
ra
-
D
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
14. The report made to the Court below by the investigating
officer was, therefore, made under Section 173 of the Code
and the Court was required to pass an order under Section
173(4) of the Code, which the Special Court has failed to do.
The order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, dated 03.05.2006 is, therefore,
set aside. The prayer sought by the investigating officer for
Summary "A" is allowed. Accordingly, present revision
application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Muddamal currency note be confiscated to the State.
It will relate back to the date of filing of A-Summary, which is
prior to the date when the respondent retired. More particularly,
in the year 2007, when the Criminal Revision Application was
filed before this High Court."
3. It was found that it related back to the A-summary, which is
prior to the date, when the applicant retired, more particularly, in the
year 2007, when the revision was filed in the High Court.
4. This we understand to mean that the High Court takes the
view that the investigating officer submitted A-summary report, which
is initially not accepted by the District Court which on revision by the
State was directed to be accepted by the High Court. The report submitted
by the agency, finding no material against the applicant, would date back
to the date on which the report was submitted which would further mean
that as on the date when the applicant retired, there was no criminal
proceeding against the applicant. Thereafter, the High Court reasoned
that there is a delay of huge period and the applicant was given clearance
by the Vigilance that there was no case pending as the State has already
filed A-summary in the ACB trap case. There was no disciplinary action
taken by the State. It was against Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and the interest also was found not unreasonable. The High Court, in the
petition filed under Article 227, found no infirmity in the order of the
Tribunal and dismissed the same.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the
learned Additional Solicitor General. Though service is complete on the
applicant, none appears on his behalf.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
6. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the
Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commutation Rules"). Therein he relied upon Rule 4
of the Commutation Rules.
7. It is his contention that in so far as judicial proceeding was
pending against the applicant and the same came to be disposed of only
in the year 2012, applicant cannot claim interest as the applicant is not
even entitled to commutation of pension as is clear from Rule 4 of the
Commutation Rules. He further submits that the District and Sessions
Judge did not accept the A-summary report which led to the revision
before the High Court in the year 2007 and the revision petition was
pending as on 01.08.2008 when the applicant superannuated. Therefore,
there was a judicial proceeding and this disentitled the applicant to CVP
within the meaning of Rule 4. It is the further case that due to the
pendency of the vigilance clearance, DCRG and CVP was withheld and
only provisional pension was granted vide order dated 04.08.2008 and
later sanction was accorded for provisional pension vide order dated
02.09.2008. When the criminal revision was allowed by the High Court
and the request for summary-A was allowed by judgment dated
30.03.2012, the respondent No.1 was accorded vigilance clearance and
vide order dated 25.10.2012, approval was granted to regularize his
pension and to release other retirement benefits. Thereafter, it is the
case of the appellants that, as seen from the written submissions, by
order dated 17.10.2012 the applicant was permitted to retire on attaining
the age of superannuation w.e.f his date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2008.
The said order was also produced before us. It is the further case that
the applicant thereupon made an application dated 01.11.2012 under the
Commutation Rules seeking commutation. The said application was also
produced along with the written submissions. It is submitted that,
accordingly, the applicant was paid the CVP and retirement gratuity
vide revised pension calculation sheet dated 31.12.2012. It is the case of
the appellants that the application made for commutation by the applicant
was within the period of one year, as contemplated in Rule 13(1) proviso
(a). CVP is only an advance payment of pension and does not accrue as
of right and is governed by the relevant Rules. Applicant was paid
provisional pension which is the maximum admissible pension since his
retirement and there was no monetary loss.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL [K.M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General made two further
submissions apart from apparently adopting the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that Court may
notice that the applicant has been given provisional pension and provisional
pension has been enjoyed by the applicant right from the beginning.
Therefore, necessary adjustment would have to be made even if the
arguments based on Rule 4 is not found acceptable. In other words,
commutation of pension involves the payment of a lump sum in lieu of
monthly payments in the future by way of pensionary benefits. When
the applicant was in receipt of provisional pension, necessarily adjustments
would have to be made by reckoning the amount and then calculating
the CVP. Therefore, when the applicant was in receipt of the provisional
pension, in the same breath ordering the appellants to pay interest would
amount to conferment of double benefit on the applicant. In other words,
applicant cannot on the one hand enjoy the provisional pension and also
cannot be given interest on CVP. The second argument, which is pressed
before us, was that there were departmental proceedings against the
applicant. This is on the basis of the concept of departmental proceedings
to be found in Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Pension Rules"). Rule 9(6)(a) of the Pension Rules
reads as follows:
"9(6)(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted
on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the
Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant
has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such
date; and
9. Learned ASG would point that the applicant has been placed
under suspension and therefore that would suffice to deny the benefit of
commutation of pension in which case interest could not be ordered to
be paid.
10.There is no dispute that CVP has been paid to the applicant
after the conclusion of the vigilance proceedings, clearing the applicant,
but the question to be considered by us as to whether the applicant was
entitled to be paid interest for the period immediately after retirement till
the date on which the CVP was actually paid to him. The scheme of the
Pension Rules, inter alia, indicate that under Rule 59, the authorities are
duty bound to set in motion, the proceedings for calculating and paying
the pension by the due date. Rule 59 would indicate that the said procedure
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
is divided into three stages; first stage - verification of service; second
stage - making good omission in the service book; third stage- as soon
as the second stage is completed, but not later than eight months prior to
the date of retirement of the Government servant various steps are to be
undertaken. Rule 61 contemplates that after complying with the
requirement of Rules 59 and 60, pension papers are to be forwarded to
the accounts officer. Rule 64 contemplates provisional pension being
paid for reasons other than departmental or judicial proceedings.
11.In the backdrop of these provisions, let us examine the scheme
of the Commutation Rules. Rule 12 of the Commutation Rules declares
who are the eligible persons to apply for commutation of a percentage
of the pension without medical examination. In fact, Rule 11 provides
that the Chapter applies to those who are eligible to commute their pension
without medical examination. The person may be a person who is
authorized to receive a superannuation pension under Rule 35 of the
Pension Rules. Likewise, superannuation pension is defined in the Pension
Rules and Rule 35 of the Pension Rules declares that superannuation
pension shall be granted to a Government servant who is retired on
attaining the age of compulsory retirement. Rule 12 of the Commutation
Rules further renders eligible a person who has been given a retiring
pension under Rule 36 of the Pension Rules. A retiring pension under
Rule 36 of the Pension Rules is granted, inter alia, to a Government
servant who retires or is retired in advance of the age of compulsory
retirement. The next person who is declared eligible is a person to whom
pension is authorized on his absorption in or under a corporation or
company or body in terms of Rule 37 of the Pension Rules and who
elects to receive monthly pension and retirement gratuity. The next
category of persons rendered eligible to commute is a person authorized
to receive compensation pension on abolition of a permanent post under
Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. Finally, under Rule 12 of the Commutation
Rules, a person authorized to receive pension in whole or in part on the
finalization of departmental or judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 9
of the Pension Rules and issue of final orders is entitled to commute the
pension.
12 Rule 13 provides for the application to be made for commutation
of pension. We will advert to the Rule when it is found necessary at a
later stage. Under Rule 14 of the Commutation Rules on receipt of
application under Rule 13, the Head of Office has to take action as
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL [K.M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
provided therein. Rule 15 provides for authorization of commuted value
by the Accounts Officer. He is to verify whether the information furnished
by the Head of Office is correct and applicant is eligible to commute a
percentage of his pension without medical examination. Sub-rule (2) of
Rule 15 provides that the Accounts Officer shall after necessary
verification issue authority for payment of CVP to the Disbursing
Authority, inter alia.
13.Rule 18 of the Commutation Rules deals with another category
of officers who are declared entitled to apply for commutation of their
pension. The difference between Rule 12 which we have referred to
and the persons mentioned in Rule 18 is that in the case of persons
rendered eligible under Rule 18, they must undergo a medical examination
whereas persons mentioned in Rule 12, as aforesaid, do not have to
undergo any medical examination. Under Rule 18 of the Commutation
Rules, the following categories of pension qualify:
(1) Invalid pension under Rule 38 of the Pension Rules.
(2) Pension granted under Rule 40 of the Pension Rules to a person
who is compulsorily retired from service as penalty.
(3) Compassionate allowance given under Rule 41 of the Pension
Rules.
14. Be it noted that compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of
the Pension Rules is contemplated in respect of a Government servant
who is dismissed or removed from service. Rule 41 of the Pension Rules
gives power to the authority competent to dismiss or remove a
Government servant from service to sanction a compassionate allowance,
if the case is deserving of special consideration and the sum is not
exceeding two-thirds of the pension or gratuity or both which would
have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.
Compensation pension is dealt with in Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. It,
inter alia, provides that if a Government servant is selected for discharge
owing to the abolition of his permanent post then unless he is appointed
to another post which is deemed equal to that of his own, the Government
servant will have the option to take compensation pension for the service
he had rendered. The last category of persons under Rule 18 of the
Commutation Rules, who is declared eligible to commute after undergoing
medical examination, is a Government servant who has retired from
service on one of the pensions which are mentioned in Rule 12 but his
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
application for commutation has not been received by the Head of Office
within one year of his retirement. There are other provisions which deal
with the action to be taken which include provision for medical examination
of the applicant falling under Rule 18, appeal against the finding of medical
authority, withdrawal of his application etc.
15. The above discussion relate to the persons who are eligible to
commute and the pension which qualify. As we have noted ordinarily by
the time the person is to retire, papers are to be got ready so that he
becomes entitled to the CVP. Thus, if application is made and if all goes
well, a person eligible, on his applying, as provided in the Rules, would
become entitled to the pension without delay after the retirement.
16. There are two situations which may result in a Government
servant not being sanctioned the final pension upon his retirement. Rule
3(l) of the Commutation Rules defines provisional pension to be the
pension referred to in Rule 64 or 69 of the Pension Rules, as the case
may be. Rule 64 of the Pension Rules provides for sanctioning
provisional pension in a case where there is no departmental or judicial
proceeding. In other words, Rule 64 of the Pension Rules contemplates
a situation where the pension is not finalized for reasons other than
departmental or judicial proceeding. When a person is so granted
provisional pension under Rule 64 of the Pension Rules then Rule 9 of
the Commutation Rules provides for commutation of a fraction of the
provisional pension which is to be subject to the limit specified in Rule 5.
It may be noticed that Rule 5 of the Commutation Rules, inter alia,
provides that a Government servant shall be entitled to commute for a
lump sum payment of an amount not exceeding forty percent of his
pension. Therefore, this limit is applicable in respect of full pension and
also cases of provisional pension. Even if a person is in receipt of only
provisional pension but which is granted under Rule 64, which as explained earlier, deals with a case which is not covered by a departmental
or judicial proceeding, the Government servant is entitled to commute
fraction of the provisional pension subject to the limit, as provided under
Rule 5 of the Commutation Rules. Rule 31 of the Commutation Rules
provides that when final assessment of the pension is done in regard to
an employee to whom commuted value of the percentage of the
provisional pension has been given under Rule 9, then he will be paid the
difference of the amount between commuted value determined on final
assessment of the pension and the commuted value already paid.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL [K.M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
17. Time is now ripe to notice Rule 4 of the Commutation Rules,
which is relied upon by the appellant and the Government of India. The
same reads as follows:
"4. Restriction on commutation of pensionNo Government servant against whom departmental or judicial
proceedings, as referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have
been instituted before the date of his retirement, or the pensioner
against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his
retirement, shall be eligible to commute a percentage of his
provisional pension authorised under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules
or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such
proceedings."
18. Rule 4 deals with a case where provisional pension has been
granted under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules. Rule 69 of the Pension
Rules contemplates sanctioning provisional pension when there is a
departmental or judicial proceeding against the Government servant. It
is when provisional pension is granted under the said Rule on account of
the fact that there is a departmental or judicial proceeding pending that
Rule 4 declares that the Government servant will not be entitled to
commute the provisional pension so granted under Rule 69 during the
pendency of the proceeding.
19. In this case, admittedly the applicant was sanctioned a
provisional pension under Rule 69 on the basis that there was a judicial
proceeding pending. We have set out the broad scheme of the
Commutation Rules. First we should ascertain what is the nature of
CVP. Is there legal right to receive CVP? Can there be cases where
for delayed payment of CVP, interest can be ordered? Is there any
provision which provides for interest?
20. A scanning of the Commutation Rules reveals that there is no
provision which contemplates payment of interest. In fact, the appellants
have produced Office Memorandum dated 05.10.1999 and the contention
appears to be raised that it does not contemplate the grant of interest.
We have gone through the said Office Memorandum. On the one hand
the Office Memorandum does not contemplate grant of interest when
CVP is paid belatedly. But on the other hand, we notice that the order
does not declare that no interest shall be payable when CVP is paid
belatedly.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
21. The next exercise is to ascertain the true nature of CVP. As
we have noticed from the Commutation Rules that CVP is inter-linked
with pension. Pension is not a bounty. It is a legal as well as a fundamental
right of a Government servant to receive his pension. It is not an act of
grace by the employer but it is the right of the Government servant who
has put in the required number of years of service. This is subject no
doubt to Rule 9 of the Pension rules under which there is power to
withhold and recover part or whole of the pension. In regard to pension,
it is beyond dispute that for belated payment of pension, interest can be
ordered to be paid. What is the position as far as CVP is concerned?
22. Commutation of pension is nothing but payment of a portion
of the pension calculated on a formula provided in the Rules, the result
of which is that the employer will be absolved from payment of the
pension to the extent it is commuted and the employee will receive the
value of commuted pension in a lump sum at one go. No doubt after a
certain number of years (15 years) the full pension gets restored.
Therefore, CVP flows out of his right to receive pension. In fact, it is a
part of his pension which is paid in lump sum to the employee. Having
culled out the essential nature of CVP, we must consider whether there
is a legal right to receive the CVP or is it discretionary and it may be
withheld.
23. It is undoubtedly true that it is entirely optional for the officer
to commute a part of his pension. In that sense it can be said that without
an application, he has no right to get commuted value. But that does it
mean, when an application is made, as contemplated in the rules, no
right is enshrined in the rules to get the committed value?
24. It is important to advert to Rule 13 in its entirety. Rule 13
provides for the application to be made by the eligible persons falling
under Rule 12, whereas Rule 19 deals with the application, to be made
by persons, who are eligible under Rule 18. It will be remembered that
Rule 12 deals with persons who are eligible for commutation of their
pension without medical examination, whereas Rule 18 deals with persons
who are in receipt of pension or other amounts and who become eligible
only on undergoing medical examination.
25. Coming to Rule 13 it reads as follows:
"13. Application for commutation of pension -
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE,
B.S.N.L. v. MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL [K.M. JOSEPH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
(1) An applicant, who is in receipt of any pension referred to in
Rule 12 and desires to commute a percentage of that pension any
time after the date following the date of his retirement from service
but before the expiry of one year from the date of retirement,
shall-
(a) apply to the Head of Office in Form 1after the date of his
retirement;
(b) ensure that the application in Form 1, duly completed , is
delivered to the Head of Office as early as possible but not later
one year of the date of his retirement :
Provided that in the case of an applicant -
(a) referred to in Clause (iii) of Rule 12, where order retiring him
from Government service had been issued from a retrospective
date, the period of one year referred to in this sub-rule shall reckon
from the date of issue of the retirement orders ;
(b) Referred to in Clause (v) of Rule 12, the period of one year
referred to in this sub-rule shall reckon from the date of the issue
of the orders consequent on the finalization of the departmental
or judicial proceedings.
(2) An applicant who applies for commutation of pension within
one year of the date of his retirement but his application in Form
1is received by the Head of Office after one year of the date of
his retirement, shall not be eligible to get his pension commuted,
without medical examination.