The Government Must Consider Pension-Revision Representations in Accordance With Law

The petitioner, a retired Kannada Professor, stated that his pension had been fixed at ₹1,17,280 per month but was later reduced, and that he was receiving ₹86,258 per month following a pension revision communicated by the Accountant General.

He challenged the reduction, alleging it was made without notice and without following applicable UGC guidelines.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17 February 2026 to the Commissioner of Collegiate and Technical Education, raising alleged disparities and incorrect deductions.

At the hearing, he pressed only the request that this representation be considered; he did not press the other prayers.

1. Whether the Commissioner of Collegiate and Technical Education should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17 February 2026 concerning the alleged pension disparity and deduction.

2. Whether the Court should decide the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the pension reduction when he pressed only the representation-consideration prayer.

The Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation “in accordance with law” but did not identify or apply any specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive legal doctrine.

It expressly left the merits of the pension dispute open.

Because the petitioner pressed only the prayer for consideration of his representation, the Court confined its decision to that relief.

It found that the representation raised matters concerning the 7th Pay Scale and prevailing UGC regulations that required consideration by the first respondent.

Without determining whether the pension reduction was lawful or expressing any view on the merits, the Court directed the first respondent to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The Court expressly stated that it had formed no opinion on the merits of the case.