IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14316 of 2005 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus MOTILAL PASWAN & ORS ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. J.P.Karn For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Mohan --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 15th September, 2008 We heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The tribunal considered the matter thus: “ I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the record. It is surprising that while the respondents have admitted the claim of applicant nos. 1 to 5 in O.A. 882 of 2003, whose case was on a similar footing as in respect of the present applicants, the same has been rejected in respect of the applicants in the present case who were applicant nos. 6 to 10 in the aforesaid O.A. From perusal of the orders passed by respondent at Annexure- A-3 series, it is quite obvious that whereas the commuted value of the pension has been paid to the applicants on 23.2.2001, the commuted portion of pension amount has been deducted from their pension from 1.2.2001. This deduction has been resorted to on the basis of Rule 6[1][c] of CCS [Pension] Rules, which statement is at page 26 furnished before this Tribunal in OA 882/2003. However, from the letter, at page 24, issued by Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 29.7.1996, in respect of pensioner, Shri Mahabir Paswan, it has been clearly indicated as follows:- “Reduced monthly pension after commutation will take effect from date commutated value is credited into pensioner’s account by the bank.” 2 My attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to provisions contained in Rules 9 and 10 of CCS [Commutation of Pension] Rules, 1981. Rule 10 provides for effective date of reduced pension. Rule 9[1] provides as follows: “[1] A Government servant to whom, pending assessment of final pension, provisional pension has been sanctioned under Rule 64 of the Pension Rules, shall be eligible to commute a fraction of such provisional pension subject to the limit specified in Rule 5.” “[b] in the case of an applicant who is drawing pension from a branch of a nationalized bank, the reduction in the amount of pension on account of commutation shall be operative from the date on which the commuted value of pension is credited by the bank to the applicant’s account to which pension is being credited.” After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the record carefully, it clearly transpires that these applicants have been unnecessarily discriminated against and their pensions have been reduced from 1.2.2001 in stead of 23.2.2001, as provided in the Rules. The same reliefs incidentally have been granted to applicant nos. 1 to 5 in OA 882 of 2003. This is also further enforced from the letter of Pay and Accounts Officer, at Annexure-A-5. Besides, respondents have arbitrarily issued the orders in Annexure-A-3 series without giving any explanation for stating so.” 3. Consideration of the matter by the tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by us in the extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/