YOGENDRA SINGH vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

(Reserved on 01.10.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
th
This the 15 day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Original Application No. 1325 of 2024

Yogendra Singh aged about 72 years, son of late Ram Lakhan
Singh, R/o H. No G-2/7, Rail Vihar Colony, Phase 1, Chargawan,

Gorakhpur.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Srinet
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
3. Principal Finance Advisor and Accounts Officer, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai and Ms Seema Srivastava
ORDER
None present for the applicant even in revised call. Shri
Pramod Kumar Rai and Ms Seema Srivastava, learned counsel for
the respondents, are present. The instant original application is being
decided on merits taking recourse to the provision of Rule 15(1) of
Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and after
hearing learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant
seeking following relief:
“i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order
dated 13.06.2024 passed by Dy. Chief Engineer / Bridge, N.E. Railway
Gorakhpur (Annexure No. A-1 to the compilation – I).
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
1 | P a g e

ii. To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to not made
recovery from pension more than commutation amount Rs. 552604/- and
excess amount which already recovered may refund to the applicant.
iii. To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to refund the
excess recovered amount and restore full monthly pension.
iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper
on the facts and circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the
applicants.
v. Award the cost of the application to the Applicant.”
3. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2024
passed by the respondents whereby his prayer for restoration of the
commutation amount beyond the period of eleven years has been
rejected.
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the
applicant was initially appointed on 17.05.1982 on the post of Bridge
Inspector Gr III, NE Railway and retired from service on 30.06.2012
as Senior Section Engineer from Varanasi Division of NE Railway.
Applicant has contended that after retirement, he had applied for
commutation of pension to which an amount of Rs 552604/- was
sanctioned and a recovery of Rs 5620/- per month was fixed from the
pension. Applicant has alleged that the installment of Rs 5620/- per
month is being deducted even beyond the period of 10 years and 8
months and a total amount of Rs. 719360/- has been recovered which
is illegal. Applicant has further claimed that his case is squarely
covered by several judicial orders especially those wherein interim
stay orders have been issued in favour of similarly situated persons.
Specifically, the applicant has referred to the order dated 09.02.2024
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh
in Civil Writ petition No 2490 of 2024 (Ram Saroop Jindal Vs State
of Punjab & Others); order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the
Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 746
of 2024 titled Krishna Devi Vs Department of Telecommunication
and order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Allahabad Bench of
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1176 of 2024 (Civil
Central Pensioners Welfare Society Vs M O Finance). By way of this
OA, he seeks quashing of the order dated 13.06.2024 thereby
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
2 | P a g e

directing the respondents to not make any recovery from pension
more than commutation amount and excess amount recovered by
refunded to him.
Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated
that applicant’s prayer for restoration of amount of the commutation
of pension was rejected in pursuance of guidelines issued by Railway
Board in which it is mentioned that commutation amount is restored
after lapse of 15 years. Respondents have contended that the
aforesaid option was exercised by the applicant himself and now at
this belated stage, he is seeking alternation of the provision which is
not possible as the same falls under the attribute of policy matter.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant reiterating the
facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the OA.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to his short
counter reply, argued that the applicant was retired on 30.06.2012.
After retirement, he had applied for commutation of pension under
CCS Pension Rules and an amount of Rs 5,52,604/- was sanctioned
on the deduction of Rs. 5,620/- per month for a period of 15 years.
Applicant moved an application after completion of 11 years for
restoration of amount of the pension which was rejected by the
respondents vide order dated 13.06.2024 in pursuance of guidelines
issued by the Railway Board which states that commutation amount
is restored after lapse of 15 years. Learned counsel further argued
that similar controversy came up before the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No 9426 of 2023
(Sheela Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and others) wherein the
Hon’ble Court granted an interim order directing the respondents not
to recover any amount towards commutation of pension after
completion of 10 years retirement. Subsequently, series of writ
petitions were filed by similarly situated persons before Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana which were clubbed along with
writ petition no 9426 of 2023 and similar interim order was also
granted in the aforesaid writ petitions. Also, writ petition no 2490 of
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
3 | P a g e

2024 (Ram Saroop Jindal Vs State of Punjab and others) was also
filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in which
interim order was granted on 09.02.2024 staying the further recovery
from the pension and the said writ petition was also connected along
with leading writ petition no 9426 of 2023. Learned counsel further
argued that the when the instant original application came up for
consideration before this Tribunal on 13.11.2024, interim order was
granted restraining the respondents from recovering / deducting any
amount from the pension of the applicant. The said interim order was
granted referring to the interim order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024.
In the order dated 25.09.2024, reference of interim order dated
25.07.2024 granted by High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in
writ petition no 5617 of 2024 was made. And the aforesaid interim
order dated 25.07.2024 was granted by the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench
of Allahabad High Court relying upon the interim order dated
09.02.2024 granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana
in writ petition no 2490 of 2024 which has already been discussed
above. Learned counsel further argued that the writ petition no 9426
of 2023 (Sheela Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and Others) was
finally decided by means of order dated 27.11.2024 along with
connected matters by which all writ petitions were dismissed holding
therein that State is entitled to effect recoveries which were stayed by
way of interim orders in the writ petitions. It was further argued that
similar controversy came for consideration before the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No 17819 of 2024 (Ashok
Kumar Agrawal and others Vs Union of India and others) which was
dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2025 considering various
judgments passed by the Apex Court including the judgment dated
27.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in the case of Sheela Devi and others (supra). Thus, learned counsel
argued that even though interim protection was granted in this case
on earlier occasion, since the case which was relied upon while
granting interim protection has been finally dismissed by the higher
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
4 | P a g e

courts, the same fate is liable to be attributed to the instant case and
the instant OA is also liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the contentions and gone through the
records.
7. When this case came up for hearing on 13.11.2024, interim
order was granted restraining the respondents from recovering /
deducting any amount from the pension of the applicant. A perusal of
the said interim order reveals that it was granted referring to the
interim order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024. The interim order
dated 25.09.2024 in Writ Petition No 15162 of 2024 was passed
relying upon the interim order dated 25.07.2024 granted by High
Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in writ petition no 5617 of
2024, which was, in turn, passed relying upon the interim order dated
09.02.2024 granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana
in writ petition no 2490 of 2024. Now, the facts on record and a
perusal of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No 9426 of 2023 titled
Shila Devi and others Vs State of Punjab and Others (Annexed as
SCR – 01 with Short Counter Reply) reveals that the said judgment
was passed in a bunch of cases wherein Writ Petition No 2490 of
2024 was also clubbed. Since vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, CWP
No 9426 of 2023 and all clubbed cases were dismissed, it would also
imply that all the interim orders issued relying upon Writ Petition
2490 of 2024 or connected cases, have ceased to exist. Thus, since
the interim protection in the instant case was granted on 13.11.2024
referring to and relying upon the aforesaid cases which now stand
dismissed in view of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the instant original application is
also liable to be dismissed accordingly. For the sake of clarity, the
operative portion of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 is quoted herein
below:
“27. It is a matter of record that all the petitioners before us are retired
employees who have admittedly availed of the benefit of commutation of
pension. Admittedly, pension of some of the employees also stands
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
5 | P a g e

restored. All the petitioners were in service at the time of issuance of
notification dated 21.07.1998. They never raised any objection to the
stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Having availed
of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the
petitioners to raise the grievances as noted above, at this stage, to seek a
variation in the terms and conditions accepted by them with open eyes.
They are not entitled to seek recovery of the amount so deposited by them
in accordance with the accepted terms and conditions.

28. In this factual matrix, the argument that it is a continuing cause of
action as it pertains to pension, is clearly unacceptable. There is no
question of any direction to the State to restore pension on expiry of 11.5
years or 12 years as prayed for or to refund the amount so recovered. It
is necessarily for the State to take a considered decision thereon after
delving into the complex questions and underlying parameters which
would be involved for assessment of the issues. Admittedly, matters
related to commutation of pension are complex affairs involving vexed
issues traversing diverse field which calls for application of specialized
expertise. It is a settled position that in such matters the Court would
venture only in case of manifest and apparent arbitrariness. Learned
counsel for petitioners were unable to point out any material on record to
indicate that the formula adopted is per se and ex facie irrational or
arbitrary which calls for interference by this Court.

29. At this stage, we take note of the specific stand of the State as
projected before us that it would be ready to examine the scheme/period
of commutation while taking into consideration changes, if any, in
underlying parameters and that an Expert Committee would be
constituted in this respect which would be assisted by Recognized Expert
Agency or Institution(s) which possess requisite knowledge and
competence in assessing such matters. In this process the Committee
would also invite and consider submission and representations in the
matter from Associations of pensioners in the State.

30. Keeping in view the fair stand on the part of the State, we do not find
any ground for issuance of any particular direction in this regard except
to observe that in terms of the stand as projected before us, it is expected
that necessary steps in this regard would be taken expeditiously by the
State.

31. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as narrated and discussed in
foregoing paras, all the 808 writ petitions are dismissed with no order as
to cost. It is clarified that the State is entitled to effect recoveries which
were stayed by way of interim orders in the writ petitions. Such recovery
however be made in a staggered manner to obviate any hardship to the
pensioners.”
8. Also, similar controversy was decided by the Hon’ble High
Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 17819 of 2024 titled Ashok Kumar
Agarwal and 48 Others Vs Union of India and Another wherein
following order was passed:
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
6 | P a g e

“Clause 41(4) contains reference to a table, which indicates the
commutation amount as also the manner of its calculation. The table is
followed with certain notes, which also highlight the manner in which the
computation is to be carried out for the purposes of commutation. Clause
2 of the note is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:
"(2) An employee who had commuted the admissible portion of pension is
entitled to have the commuted portion of the pension restored after the
expiry of a period of fifteen years from the date of commutation."
The provisions contained in the Regulations would clearly indicate that
the retiring employee shall indicate a fraction of pension, which he
desires to commute, and may indicate its maximum limit, which shall not
be more than 1/3rd of the pension. In case, the fraction amount is in part
of the rupee, such fraction of a rupee is to be ignored for the purposes of
commutation. Note (2) is categorical and provides in specific terms that
employees who have commuted the admissible portion of pension, is
entitled to have the commuted portion of the pension restored after the
expiry of 15 years from the date of commutation. The statutory scheme is,
therefore, abundantly clear that an option is extended to the retiring
employee concern to avail of the benefit of computation and such
computation is on specific terms that on expiry of 15 years of such
commutation, the original pension is to be restored.
The petitioners' contention that period for resumption of full pension be
reduced from 15 years to 10 years only because the bank actually
recovers the lumpsum amount paid on expiry of 10 years, is a
misconceived argument. The Policy contained in the Regulations of 1995
extends an offer to the retiring employee to avail the benefit of
commutation on specific terms. These terms clearly provide for
restoration of pension only on expiry of 15 years. The petitioners
otherwise do not say that the terms of the policy is unconstitutional or
unconscionable.
Having accepted such offer, a binding contract comes into existence
between the employee and the employer as per which the original
pension is to be restored after 15 years. Having acquiesced to the
commutation policy with open eyes, it is not open for the retiring
employee to contend later that the period of restoration of full pension be
reduced from 15 years to 10 years. Whether or not the lumpsum amount
gets equalised on expiry of 10 years or 11 year is not decisive or
material. What is material is the nature of obligation which enures upon
the parties when the retiring employee accepts the provision of
commutation of pension. The employee with his open eyes having availed
the policy, cannot subsequently turn around or seek modification in its
terms. The argument that the table or the figures were not adequately
disclosed, is also not acceptable, inasmuch as the chart specifies the
manner in which the commutation is to be fixed and the period after
which the original pension is to be restored. In case, the employees had
any misgivings about it, they could have sought appropriate clarification
before accepting the offer. Once, the petitioners have acquiesced to the
policy and accepted the offer, their subsequent attempt to resile or seek
change in its computation would clearly be impermissible.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
7 | P a g e

The view taken by us clearly finds support from the adjudication made by
the Supreme Court in "Common Cause", A Registered Society And
Others Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 142, R.
Gandhi Vs. Union of India And Others, (1999) 8 SCC 106 as well the
judgment of Delhi High Court in Forum Retired IPS Officers (FORIPSO)
Vs. Union of India & Another, 2019 SCC Online Del 6610 and Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Shila Devi Vs. State of Punjab in CWP No. 9426
of 2023.”

9. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to record here that the
applicant has voluntarily exercised the option of availing the benefit
of commutation of pension. So, having availed a benefit which is
clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the applicant to raise the
grievance as noted above, at this stage, to seek a variation in the
terms and conditions accepted by him with open eyes. He is not
entitled to seek recovery of the amount so deposited by him in
accordance with the accepted terms and conditions. Further, allowing
so would required alternation in the extant policy of the Government
of India and therefore, no relief is admissible to the applicant.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis and
strictly on the basis of case laws quoted and discussed above, the
instant original application is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
11. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.


(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)

(Ritu Raj)
RITU
RAJ
SINGH
8 | P a g e