K.T. Muralee Mohanan vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4105 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.T. Muralee Mohanan vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2025

Author: D. K. Singh

Bench: D. K. Singh

WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024




                                              1
                                                                         2025:KER:13813


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

                 MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946

                                    WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024


PETITIONER/S:

       1        K.T. MURALEE MOHANAN
                AGED 71 YEARS
                S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, HOUSE NO. 49/93/B, PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI, PIN -
                682026

       2        PUSHPAM FRANKLIN
                AGED 70 YEARS
                W/O FRANKLIN, FAVANA, KS ROAD, KOVALAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695527


                BY ADVS.
                V.K.PRASAD
                MUSTHAHAZIN K. MOHAMMED
                JOSNA.C.F
                RINTU PAUL




RESPONDENT/S:

       1        UNION OF INDIA,
                REP BY ITS SECRETARY, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN -
                110001

       2        UNION BANK OF INDIA
                REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN
                BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400021
 WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024




                                            2
                                                                       2025:KER:13813


               BY ADVS.
               G.MAHESWARY
               ASP.KURUP
               SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
               C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
               SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
               B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
               ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
               SWATHI KRISHNA P.H.(K/000791/2024)



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024




                                      3
                                                           2025:KER:13813



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioners are former employees of the erstwhile Corporation

Bank, which has been merged with the Union Bank of India with effect

from 2019. The first petitioner retired on 30.11.2013 after attaining the

age of superannuation after 31 years of service. The second petitioner

retired on 01.07.2014 after putting in around 33 years of service in the

Bank.

2. Post-retiral benefits of the petitioners are governed by the

Corporation Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995. Regulation 41

of the aforesaid Regulations of 1995 provides for the commutation of

pension. Under the said Regulation, a retired employee is allowed to

commute a portion of his/her pension to raise a lumpsum amount under

the commutation of the pension scheme. An employee may commute up

to one-third of his/her pension with the option to choose either the

maximum limit or a lower amount according to their preference. Sub- WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

Regulation (5) of Regulation 41 provides that an employee who had

commuted the admissible portion of the pension is entitled to have the

commuted portion of the pension restored after the expiry of a period

of 15 years from the date of commutation.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court with the present

writ petition since the entire commuted amount given to the petitioners

is recoverable within 118 months (approximately 9 years and 9 months)

and the Bank has already recovered the said amount from the

petitioners, but the petitioners' full pension has not been restored after

9 years and 9 months. It is submitted that once the commuted value of

the pension has been recovered in less than 15 years, their full pension

should have been restored as soon as the entire commuted value of the

pension was recovered.

3.1 The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition

challenging the fixation of the 15-years time period for the restoration

of pension as illegal and seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

respondent Bank to restore the full pension after the actual recovery of

the commuted amount. It is submitted that once the entire commuted

value is recovered, restoring the full pension only after 15 years is

arbitrary. It imposes an additional, unwarranted burden on the

petitioners, depriving them of several years of their rightful pension.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted

that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on

the sweet will of the employer. It is a vested right that is statutory in

nature. It is not an ex-gratia payment, but it is a payment for the past

service rendered, and it is a social welfare measure, rendering socio-

economic justice to those who in the heydays of their life ceaselessly

toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age, they would

not be left in the lurch. To support the aforesaid submission the learned

Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in the WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

case of D S Nakara v. Union of India1.

4.1 The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that

not restoring the full pension even after recovering all the lumpsum

amount paid to the petitioners as a result of their one-third

commutation of pension amount, amounts to undue enrichment, which

goes against the principle as laid down in D S Nakara (supra). Therefore,

it is submitted that Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 41 of the

Corporation Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995 be declared

ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, Advocate Siva Suresh holding for

Advocate A S P Kurup the learned Counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the petitioners, after availing the facility of commutation

of their pension as per the provisions of Regulation 41 of the Corporation

Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, cannot challenge the said

(1983) 1 SCC 305 WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

Regulation or ask for restoration of the commuted pension before 15

years. The fixation of 15 years for restoration of commuted one-third of

the pension is a policy decision taken by all the Banks in terms of the

negotiations held at that point of time when the pension regulations

were originally introduced.

5.1 The commutation is not a loan given to an employee, but it is

a benefit conferred on an employee to receive a lump sum amount for

their one-third pension instead of getting the full pension for 15 years.

Therefore, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that

when the employer/Bank has recovered the value of commutation of

one-third pension before 15 years, the full pension is to be restored from

the date of recovery, has no substance. It is a condition provided in the

Regulation that the full value of the pension on commutation of one-

third pension would be restored only after the expiry of 15 years. It is

thus submitted that neither Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 41 is ultra

vires the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India nor WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

in law the petitioners are entitled for restoration of their full pension

before 15 years. Even if the employer has realized the commuted value

of the pension before the expiry of 15 years, the petitioners cannot claim

restoration of the pension as soon as the full value is realized.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents has also submitted

that the issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Common Cause, a

registered Society v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court has held that

commutation has certain advantages. The commuting pensioner gets a

lump sum amount, which he would have received over a period,

provided he would be alive. Therefore, the Court did not find any

justification to disturb the 15-year formula.

Paragraph 5 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"The petitioners have contended that the commuted portion out of the pension is ordinarily recovered within about 12 years and, therefore, there is no justification for fixing the period at 15 years. Commutation brings about certain advantages. The commuting pensioner get a lump-

1987 (1) SCC 142 WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

sum amount which ordinarily he would have received in course of a spread over period subject to his continuing to live. Thus, two advantages are certainly forthcoming out of commutation - (1) availability of a lump- sum amount and (2) the risk factor. Again, many of the State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15-year rule. In this background, we do not think we would be justified in disturbing the 15-year formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned."

6.1 Again, the Supreme Court considered the same question in

Bharat Petroleum Management Staff Pensioners v. Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd3and the same prayers were rejected, relying on the

judgment in the case of Common Cause, a registered Society (supra).

6.2 The Supreme Court again reiterated the said law as laid down

in Common Cause, a registered Society (supra) in Welfare Association of

absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises v. Union of

India4.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by

1990 (2) SCC 356

1996 (2) SCC 187 WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

the Supreme Court, Sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 41 only provides a

condition precedent of commuting one-third pension to get the lump

sum amount by an employee of the Bank, i.e., after 15 years only the full

pension would be restored. Therefore, this Court does not find that such

a condition which has been laid down in the Regulation is in any manner

violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

This Court finds no substance in this writ petition, which is hereby

dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters

stand closed.

Sd/-

D. K. SINGH JUDGE jjj WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39729/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 15.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CORPORATION BANK (EMPLOYEES') PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 IN CWP-

20742/2024 (ALL INDIA UNION BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR) ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 22753/2024 (ALL INDIA GREF EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS VS UNION OF INDIA)

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 04.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED REVISED PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE CORPORATION BANK

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R2A A true copy of the decision dated 9.12.1986 reported in Common Cause, a registered society and others v. Union of India [1987 (1) SCC 142] WP(C) NO. 39729 OF 2024

2025:KER:13813

Exhibit R2B A true copy of decision in Bharat Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners and others v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others [1990(2) SCC 356]

Exhibit R2C A true copy of the decision B.P. Corpn. :td. Ex. Employees Association and others v. C and M.D, B.P. Corporation ltd. and others [1994 SCC (L and S) 20]

Exhibit R2D A true copy of the decision Welfare Association of absorbed Central Government Employees in Public enterprises and others v. Union of India and another [1996(2) SCC 187]

Exhibit R 2E A true copy of the decision R. Gandhi v. Union of India and another [1999(8) SCC 106]

Exhibit R 2F A true copy of the decision reported in Ramakrishna Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others dated 7.11.2024, reported in [2024 SCC online SC 3194]

Exhibit R2G A true copy of the decision reported in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, reported in [2024 SCC online SC 3192]

Exhibit R2H A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN CWP NO.

Exhibit R2I A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 4/12/24 IN CWP NO.

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P10 A true copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 between the Unions and the IBA