IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16396 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 10, 2010. Jagdish Chander Mittal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Grewal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.B.S.Sudan, Advocate, for Dr.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of commutation of his pension as per the rates revised and introduced vide circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) and/or which were in vogue since 31.7.2003? [2] The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined the respondent-Board as an Apprentice Engineer w.e.f. 3.5.1976 and would have retired from the post of Superintending Engineer-cum-Director Tariff Regulations on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2006. The petitioner, however, sought and was granted pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 13.10.2006 vide an order of the even date (Annexure P-2) C.W.P.No .16396 of 2008 2 which reads as follows:- “.....Punjab State Electricity Board has decided to allow voluntary retirement to ER.Jagdish Chander Mittal, SE (Code No.2250), now working as Director/Tariff Regulation-I, PSEB, Patiala w.e.f. 13.10.2006 AN by waiving the condition of notice period due to his family circumstances. In case any disciplinary case/outstanding amount crops at a later stage, the Voluntary retirement will no effect the disciplinary proceedings/recovery of outstanding amount, if any. Further the retiree shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before 30.11.2006 a.m. This issues with the approval of competent authority.......” (emphasis applied) [3] The petitioner on his voluntary retirement w.,e.f. 13.10.2006 was, thus, not permitted to seek commutation of even a part of his pension before 30.11.2006. It is not in dispute that the Government of Punjab had earlier issued circular dated 31.7.2003 alongwith a Table for the purpose of calculation of commutation of pension which was later on revised and the discount rate was reduced from 8% to 4.75% per annum vide Finance Department Circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6). Both these circulars were adopted by the Board alongwith the Punjab Civil Services Rules to govern the service conditions of its employees. [4] In order to resolve the issue set out in the beginning, namely, should the petitioner be granted the commutation of pension as per the Table contained in the Finance Department Circular dated 31.7.2003 and/or the revised Table introduced vide Circular dated 31.10.2006, Rule C.W.P.No .16396 of 2008 3 11.12A (1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II is relevant which reads as follows:- “11.12A(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 11.2 to 11.4 and 11.6 to 11.12 a Government employee, who applies for commutation of pension within one year of the date of his retirement on superannuation or within one year of the expiry of extension if such a Government employee is granted extension of service after superannuation shall not be subjected to medical examination as required under these rules for the purpose of payment of commuted value of pension. Application for commutation of pension shall be made in Form Pen 14-A after the date of retirement and the commutation shall become absolute. The retired Government employee shall become entitled to receive the commuted value on the date of which his application is received by the Head on Office: Provided that the Government employee shall not be allowed to withdraw his application given for commutation of pension under this rule....” (emphasis applied) [5] The above reproduced Rule does permit a retiree to apply for commutation of his pension within a period of one year of the date of his retirement even without undergoing any medical examination. [6] The petitioner was, irrespective of his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 13.10.2006 or on superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2006, also entitled to seek commutation of pension within a period of one year from either of the dates. The petitioner admittedly applied for commutation of his pension C.W.P.No .16396 of 2008 4 within a period of one year of his retirement on 19.3.2007 (Annexure P10) and sought the benefit of revised Table enforced w.e.f. 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) which incidentally contained the same discount rate as was in existence prior to 31.7.2003. The petitioner has been however denied the benefit of revised Table introduced vide circular dated 31.10.2006 as according to the respondents, the said circular applied `prospectively' only and not applicable to those like the petitioner who stood retired prior to 31.10.2006. [7] 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. The revised Table dated 31.10.2006 admittedly came into force before that date. Since the petitioner could apply for the commutation of pension after the introduction of revised Table dated 31.10.2006, he could not be deprived its benefit on equitable considerations also. [13] For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of commutation of pension to the petitioner as per the revised Table which came into force w.e.f. 31.10.2006. The amount of commuted pension shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. [14] As regards to the petitioner's second prayer for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P-9), it is pointed out by his learned counsel that the said order has already been quashed by this Court vide an order dated 17.11.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.18926 of 2008 (Er.Charan Dass Vohra versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another), [15] No costs. Dasti. December 10, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE