Retired officials cannot claim dearness relief on Public Service Commission pensions to prevent double enrichment.

The petitioner, a retired Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh (retired on 30.06.2013), was subsequently appointed as a Member of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) on 02.09.2013.

He later served as the Acting Chairman from 21.05.2015 to 13.06.2015.

Following his tenure at CGPSC, he was granted a fixed pension of Rs. 1,646/- for the services rendered therein, in addition to the regular pension and dearness relief he receives for his primary service as a government secretary.

The petitioner filed a representation seeking dearness relief and revision of the CGPSC-specific pension, which was rejected by the General Administration Department on 27.08.2021.

The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing entitlement under the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Aayog (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001.

Whether a retired government servant appointed as a Member or Chairman of the State Public Service Commission is entitled to dearness relief and periodic revision of the additional pension earned through said Commission service.

The Court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Aayog (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2001.

Regulation 8(2) allows government servants appointed to the Commission to opt for pension, while Regulation 8(3) prescribes a maximum pension cap (Rs. 1,56,000 for Chairman and Rs. 1,47,000 for Members) to prevent double enrichment.

The Court also relied on the legal principle against "double enrichment," ensuring that a retiree does not concurrently draw full benefits from two separate capacities beyond the statutory ceiling.

The Court observed that Regulation 8 of the 2001 Regulations is designed to maintain a balance for officers who serve the Commission after superannuation from government service.

To avoid double enrichment, the State grants a lump-sum or "difference amount" rather than a full second pension.

In this case, the petitioner’s primary pension from his tenure as Secretary is already subject to regular revision and dearness relief.

The Court reasoned that the fixed amount of Rs. 1,646/- represents the calculated difference or additional entitlement for his Commission service.

Since his main pension is being duly revised by the State, the Court held that the respondent’s decision not to revise the supplementary Commission pension was just and proper.

The Court affirmed that the existing pensionary benefits provided by the State, which include revisions for his primary service, are sufficient and in accordance with the 2001 Regulations.

No order as to costs was made.