Prabhu Lal vs Uoi And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 7192 Del

       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.12.2012

+       W.P.(C) 667/2012 & CM 1449/2012

PRABHU LAL                                                         ... Petitioner

                                        versus

UOI AND ORS                                                        ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Ms Deepali Gupta
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Prasouk Jain for Mr B.V. Niren
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr V. P. Uppal

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in OA 964/2011.

2. We need not go into the details of the controversy and we only

need to examine the claim of the petitioner with regard to the

commutation of pension that the petitioner had sought prior to his

retirement as also the date from which the deductions would be deemed

to take effect from.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that her

case fell within provisos (a) and (b) to Rule 6(1) of the CCS

(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. However, the learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 submitted that the case of the petitioner was

covered by proviso (c) and not by provisos (a) or (b) of the said Rules.

We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent No.2

that the case of the petitioner falls within proviso (c) to Rule 6(1) of the

said Rules. This is so because the petitioner's case falls under Rule 13(3)

of the said Rules. That being the case, the approach adopted by the

respondent No.2 in seeking recovery of the excess pension amount from

the date of superannuation till the date the commuted pension was paid to

the petitioner, would be in order. That part of the order passed by the

respondent No.2 and which has been confirmed by the Tribunal need not

be disturbed. However, what requires consideration is the fact that the

computation of the commuted value of pension has itself not been done

correctly. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, as

indicated in the counter-affidavit, the computation was done in terms of

Annexure R-1 to the said counter-affidavit which is also to be found at

page 78 of the paper book. The table that is mentioned in Annexure R-1

pertains to commutation values for a pension of Rupee 1 per annum and it

is effective from 1st March, 1971. It is an admitted position that the age at

the next birthday of the petitioner on superannuation would be 61 years

and, therefore, the commutation value expressed as a number of the

year's purchase would be 9.81.

4. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner would be drawing

pension of ` 11,645/- per annum on his superannuation. Since he had

asked for 40% commutation, the value would be ` 4,658/- per month.

Therefore, the lump sum amount that would be payable to the petitioner

would be ` 4,658/- x 12 x 9.81, which comes to ` 5,48,340/-. However,

what has been computed by the respondent No.2 is the figure of `

4,58,012/- on the basis of a commutation value computed with reference

to a table which became effective only from 2nd September, 2008. This is

incorrect. Since the commutation value is to be computed on the date on

which the petitioner superannuated, the table which was effective from 1st

March, 1971 would be applicable and not the table which became

effective from 2nd September, 2008. Therefore, the lump sum amount is

computed at ` 5,48,340/- and the interest for three years at the rate of 8%

per annum thereon would come to ` 1,31,601/-. This amount, less the

amount already paid, shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondent

No.2 within four weeks.

5. The petitioner accepts this position and so does the respondent

No.2. We also clarify that the deductions from pension would be

applicable for a period of 15 years with effect from 01.03.2007.

With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands

disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 14, 2012 SR