CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue which has impact on the quantum of pension drawn by the Central Government pensioners, who had exercised their option for receiving a lumpsum amount on computation of a percentage of pension admissible to them, is involved in this writ petition. Since the adjudication of the issue would also involve the service conditions of those pensioners whose service reiated disputes are cognizable by the Central Government Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner in support of IA No. 12599/2005 seeking permission of the Court to confine the reliefs sought for in the writ petition to those Central Government pensioners who will not come within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Such permission was granted on 30/09/2005 and thereafter the writ petition was proceeded with. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents. By consent of parties the writ petition was has been taken up and disposed of.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Anil K. Narendran and Sri. T. Sanjay, learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THE illustration also gives the number of years of purchase, lumpsum amount payable and recovery effected for 15 years and 12 years of 33% of the pension drawn. THE number of years of purchase undergoes considerable reduction from 10. 46 to 9. 81 on enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60. Consequently there is a significant reduction in the lumpsum payable to the pensioner on commutation. But what is sought to be illustrated by the petitioner is that instead of number of years of purchase from 10. 46 to 9. 81 and consequent reduction in the lumpsum amount payable on commutation, the recovery effected over the period of 15 years remains the same. Further more, the recovery effected from the pensioner over a period of 12 years itself is far in excess of the amount which had been paid to the pensioner at the time of commutation. It is contended that since based on the portion actually commuted the monthly pension drawn by the pensioner is correspondingly reduced and proportionate recovery is effected by the Government, restoration of the pension should be coterminus with the recovery effected attaining such levels as are required to make up the lumpsum amount that had been paid at the time of communication. THE contention is that where restoration of the pension is delayed beyond the period of 12 years and reaches 15 years as being currently done, there is an excess recovery by the Government and this is exprapriatory and amounts to unjust enrichment. Since class of persons who are subjected to such excess recovery are weaker sections of the society who are entitled to the protection and benevolent attitude of the Government, the Government ought to take serious attention to the anomaly above mentioned and take appropriate action thereupon, it is contended.