Jagdish Chander Mittal v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the objection raised by the respondents as noticed above is unsustainable in law and the petitioner is entitled to commutation of his pension as per the revised Table introduced w.e.f.

31.10.2006. I say so for the reason that Rule 11.5, Note-2 of the Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, enables a retiree to seek payment of commutation of his pension in accordance with the modified Table if such modification takes place between the date of administrative sanction to commutation and the date on which the commutation is due to become absolute. The Note-2 reads as follows:-

Note 2. In the event of the table of present values applicable to an applicant having been modified between the date of administrative sanction to commutation and the date on which commutation is due to become absolute, payment shall be made in accordance with the modified table, but it shall be open to the applicant if the modified table is less favourable to him than that previously in force, to withdraw his application by notice C.W.P.No .16396 of 2008 5 in writing despatched within 14 days of the date on which he receives notice of modification....

(emphasis applied) [8] A co-joint reading of Rule 11.12A(1) and Rule 11.5, Note-2 of the Rules (ibid), leaves no room to doubt that a retiree has got right to seek commutation of pension within a period of one year of his retirement as per the Table which has been modified between the date of administrative sanction to commute the pension and the date on which the commutation of pension becomes due. [9] In the case in hand also, the petitioner was entitled to seek commutation of pension as per the modified Table which had come into force within a period of one year of his retirement w.e.f.

13.10.2006. If the date of retirement of the petitioner is taken to be 30.11.2006 in that event the above stated revised Table becomes the `existing' Table to which the petitioner would be otherwise entitled to. [10] The contention that such an interpretation would lead to uncertainty has no factual or legal basis for the reason that the period within which a retiree can seek commutation of pension is prescribed by the Rules. It is only when the modified Table is introduced between the dates when commutation of pension becomes due or administrative sanction for such commutation is actually sanctioned, that a retiree can take advantage of such revised/modified Table. [11] On the contrary, Note-2, of Rule 11.5 (ibid) need not be confined for those retirees only whose applications for commutation of C.W.P.No .16396 of 2008 6 pension are awaiting administrative sanction. Such a restrictive interpretation to the Rule would lead to arbitrary and discriminatory consequence besides giving premium on red-tapism. [12] That apart, the respondents themselves deprived the petitioner of seeking commutation of pension before 30.11.2006.