Voluntary pension commutation is restorable only after the prescribed 15-year period.

The applicant, a retired North Eastern Railway employee, had commuted part of his pension, receiving ₹5,52,604, with deductions of ₹5,620 per month.

He challenged the Railway’s refusal to restore the commuted portion before 15 years and sought an end to further deductions and a refund of amounts allegedly recovered beyond the commutation sum.

The respondents maintained that restoration was due only after 15 years under Railway Board guidelines.

Although the Tribunal had granted interim protection against deductions, the applicant’s counsel was absent at the final hearing; the Tribunal proceeded on the merits under Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of the commuted portion of his pension, or a refund of deductions, before expiry of the prescribed 15-year period.

Whether the interim protection against deductions warranted relief after the cases relied upon for that protection had been dismissed.

Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 permits the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits in the circumstances recorded by it.

The Tribunal relied on the Railway Board’s position that the commuted portion of pension is restored after 15 years, and on the principle that an employee who voluntarily accepts commutation on stated terms cannot later seek to vary them absent a legal basis for interference.

It also relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Sheela Devi v. State of Punjab, which rejected challenges to the 15-year restoration period and held that recoveries stayed by interim orders could be effected in a staggered manner.

The Tribunal further relied on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, which upheld the 15-year restoration term and referred to Common Cause v. Union of India, R. Gandhi v. Union of India, and Forum Retired IPS Officers v. Union of India.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily availed commutation and had accepted the applicable terms, under which restoration was due after 15 years; the fact that deductions may have equalled or exceeded the lump sum earlier did not entitle him to alter that period.

It also held that the interim protection in his case had been granted by reference to interim orders in cases that were subsequently dismissed, including the connected proceedings in Sheela Devi. Accordingly, those interim orders no longer supported continuation of protection in the applicant’s case.

The Tribunal considered that changing the restoration period would require alteration of government policy and found no basis to grant that relief.

No costs were awarded.