The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed 808 petitions challenging the 15-year period for restoration of pension after commutation, while taking note of the state’s stand that it was “ready to examine the scheme /the switching period while taking into account changes, if any, in the underlying parameters” through an expert committee. The court was told that the committee would “seek and consider submissions and representations on the matter from pensioners’ associations in the state”.

The petitions, filed by retired Punjab government employees, sought restoration of the updated pension after a shorter period of around 12 years, arguing that the current period of 15 years was arbitrary and unjustified.

Division Judges Lisa Gill and Sukhvinder Kaur observed: “Having benefited from a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the petitioners to raise grievances, at this stage, to seek modification of the conditions and conditions accepted by them with open eyes.

The court ruled that the applicants’ request was unfounded, adding: “The applicants’ lawyers have not been able to cite any material in the file indicating that the formula adopted is per se and ex-facie irrational or arbitrary, which calls for interference on the part of this court. .”

The bench said issues relating to pension commutation were inherently complex, involving “controversial issues cutting across various areas, which require the application of specialist expertise”. He reiterated that judicial interference in such cases would only be justified in cases of “manifest and apparent arbitrariness”, which the petitioners have failed to establish.

The bench further observed that all the petitioners were retired employees who had voluntarily availed the commutation benefit under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Noting that some of their pensions had already been restored, the court said the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of commutation “with open eyes” and could not challenge the restoration period at this stage.

Refusing to give specific directions, the court said: “It is intended that necessary steps in this regard will be taken expeditiously by the State.” »

The court also set aside all the interim orders suspending the recoveries and clarified: “The State has the right to make the recoveries which have been stayed by way of interim orders in the writ petitions. This recovery must, however, be carried out in stages to avoid any difficulty for retirees.

Dismissing the petitions, the court concluded: “There is no question of directing the State to restore the pension on the expiry of 11.5 years or 12 years as prayed for or to refund the amount so recovered. ” He added, “All the 808 writ petitions are dismissed without an order as to cost.” »