C.W.P. No. 18144 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18144 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 16.11.2011 Shiv Narain & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus P.S.E.B (now Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd.) & Anr. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Anuj Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to grant the petitioners same benefits as given to the employees who have filed C.W.P. No. 15554 of 2007 decided on 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby, impugned circular dated 29.7.2003 allowing commutation of pension to the petitioners at the reduced rates has been quashed. Notice of motion was issued on 26.9.2011. In response thereto, reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in Court today and the same is taken on record. In the present case, the respondent Board is adopting all the instructions/circulars issued by the Government of Punjab with regard to payment of commutation of pension to its employees. Before 1.12.1981 commutation of pension was lifetime and there was no provision of C.W.P. No. 18144 of 2011 (2) restoration of the commutation value of pension. However, the Punjab Government issued instructions vide letter dated 8.12.1981 vide which it was decided that in case where the pensioners commute a part of their pension and receive lump sum in lieu thereof, they be allowed restoration of surrendered portion of the pension after attaining the age of 70 years. Subsequently, another instructions vide letter dated 19.5.1983 were issued clarifying the restoration period of commuted portion of pension in those cases where the pension is commuted within one year after retirement or in case where the pension is commuted in subsequent year. In view of circular dated 31.10.2006, the Government has fixed the period of restoration as 138 months or at the age of 70 years whichever is later, because the purchase value is 10.46 years i.e. about 124 months. The actual commuted value would be repaid to the Government in 126 months by way of reduced pension and further a period of 12 months was added to cover up the notional recovery of interest. It was done on the basis of instructions dated 19.5.1983. After December 8, 1991, in view of instructions dated 31.10.2006 and under Rule 11.1(b) and 11.5 (1&2) read with Rule 11.5(2) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, the employee who retires after 1.12.1986 and prior to 1.1.1996 had option to commute his pension upto 1/3rd of their basic pension and can receive a lump sum amount in lieu thereof and the surrendered portion of the pension was to be restored on attaining the age of 70 years. Accordingly, surrendered portion of pension was eligible to be restored after 12 years in case the employee retired at the age of 58 years. The petitioners, who retired before 1.1.1996 and after 1.1.1986, on attaining the age of superannuation which is 58 years are entitled to commute their pension equivalent to 1/3rd of the pension and the commuted portion of pension is liable to be restored on attaining the age of 70 years, meaning thereby commuted portion of pension was restored after C.W.P. No. 18144 of 2011 (3) 12 years i.e. from 58 to 70 years. The circular dated 29.7.2003 was challenged in CWP No.15554 of 2007 and the petition was allowed with following directions: “After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and our opinion is further strengthened by the ratio of law, laid down in V.Kasturi’s case (supra) which has been followed by Hoshiar Singh’s case (supra). The State cannot be permitted to create two categories of retires by providing a cut off date as there is no rationale. In view of above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 29.7.2003 and restore the pension of the petitioners, in accordance with the revised table. Issued as per the circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P.6).” The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the directions issued in CWP No.15554 of 2007. It has also been brought to notice of this Court that the judgment in CWP No.15554 of 2007 was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25856 of 2008, which is still pending. Vide order dated 7.11.2008 contempt proceedings have been stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents has also not controverted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of direction issued in the said petition, the present petition is also allowed. It is made clear that the petitioners would be entitled to any relief only on the disposal of SLP No.25856 of 2008 in favour of the petitioners. November 16, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 18144 of 2011 (4)