ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member)
An identical relief which is based on similar facts and circumstances prayed for by the applicants in all these Original Applications, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In the present Original Applications, the applicants challenge the continued recovery of the commuted portion of pension for a uniform statutory period of fifteen years prescribed under Rule 10A of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, and analogous pension regulations applicable to other pensionary establishments.
3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The Pensioner-Applicants contend that the revisions in commutation factors recommended by successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) have materially altered the actuarial assumptions on which the original fifteen-year recovery period was based. According to him, the continued recovery of the commuted portion of pension for a fixed duration of fifteen years, irrespective of the applicable commutation factor, results in deductions exceeding the commuted value originally paid to the
3
pensioners. In some cases, the applicants have challenged the rejection of their representations seeking restoration of the commuted portion of pension before the expiry of fifteen years. In other cases, the challenge is directed against the constitutional validity of Rule 10A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 itself. It is in this factual backdrop that the competing submissions regarding the legality and validity of the continued recovery of commuted pension for a uniform period of fifteen years arise for consideration in the present OAs.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that pension constitutes deferred wages and a vested statutory right, and is not a bounty. It forms an integral component of the social security framework intended to protect retired employees. According to the applicants, commutation of pension is designed to provide immediate financial assistance at the time of retirement and cannot be treated as a mechanism for prolonged depletion of pensionary benefits. It is argued that the statutory scheme contemplates recovery only of the commuted value disbursed to the pensioner and does not justify continued reduction of pension beyond the period required for such recovery.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that deductions made under the
4
commutation scheme must bear a reasonable and proportionate relationship to the benefit received by the pensioner. Continued deduction after recovery of the commuted value is alleged to impose a disproportionate burden upon pensioners, particularly those belonging to economically vulnerable sections. It is contended that the continued application of a uniform fifteen-year restoration period under the CCS Commutation framework is arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India.
6. It was further submitted that certain State Governments, including Kerala and Gujarat, have adopted pension commutation schemes providing for restoration after twelve or thirteen years. According to the applicants, such differential treatment results in hostile discrimination against Central Government and Defence pensioners, despite all pensioners constituting a homogeneous class of retirees. The applicants contend that the fifteen-year restoration period, evolved several decades ago, has become outdated in light of revised financial assumptions, declining interest rates, increased life expectancy, and subsequent expert recommendations advocating shorter restoration periods. On these grounds, the applicants seek the reliefs prayed for in the present OAs.
5
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the reply statement and submitted that the issue is no longer res integra. It was contended that the matter has been comprehensively considered and settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Sub Trilok Chand (W.P. (C) No. 12781/2024 and connected matters), decided on 29.05.2026. Accordingly, it was prayed that the OAs be dismissed.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the judicial precedents relied upon by the respective parties.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, similar issues have recently been considered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (W.A. No. 17819/2024), Dan Bahadur Yadav (W.A. No. 12905/2024), and Kaushal Kishore Mishra (W.A. No. 4753/2025). After considering the decisions in Common Cause [(1987) 1 SCC 142], Forum of Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO) [2019 SCC OnLine Del 6610], and Shila Devi [2024 PHHC 157352-DB], the High Court reaffirmed the validity of the fifteen-year restoration period, holding that pension commutation rules form part of an integrated
6
economic and fiscal policy and cannot be invalidated merely on the basis of alternative financial calculations advanced by individual applicants.
10. We also find that the issue is no longer res integra and has been extensively examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India & Others v. Sub Trilok Chand & Others (W.P. (C) No. 12781/2024 and connected matters), decided on 29.05.2026. After considering the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the High Court upheld the validity of the fifteen-year restoration period and rejected the challenge to Rule 10A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules and analogous provisions governing other pensionary regimes. The High Court, inter alia, held that:
• The consistent retention of the fifteen-year restoration period by successive Central Pay Commissions reflects a conscious and informed policy decision rather than arbitrary fixation.
• Pension commutation is not analogous to a loan transaction; it is an actuarially determined restructuring of pension payments based on system-wide financial and demographic considerations.
• The restoration period is founded upon actuarial equilibrium applicable to the pension system as a whole and not upon individual mathematical recovery calculations.
• Revision of commutation factors forms part of a broader and integrated pension reform framework and does not automatically warrant a corresponding reduction in the restoration period.
7
• Courts must exercise restraint in matters involving economic and fiscal policy, particularly where such policies are based on expert actuarial evaluation.
• Differences between pension schemes adopted by various State Governments and the Central Government do not, by themselves, constitute hostile discrimination under Article 14.
• The temporary reduction in pension during the commutation period arises from the voluntary exercise of a statutory option by the pensioner and cannot be equated with unconstitutional deprivation of property.
• The uniform fifteen-year restoration period possesses a rational basis, serves a legitimate fiscal objective, and does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness.
11. The High Court ultimately concluded that the challenge to Rule 10A and analogous provisions lacked merit and upheld the validity of the uniform fifteen-year restoration period applicable to commuted pension.
12. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India & Others
v. Sub Trilok Chand & Others, and the other decisions referred to above, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents. The issue stands concluded by binding judicial precedent, and no grounds have been made out warranting interference by this Tribunal.
8
13. In the result, all the Original Applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
15.06.2026
mas
9