The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former state Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman R S Vishwakarma, who sought an additional pension and challenged the cut-off date of a 2020 pension amendment notification. A division bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal on May 15 ruled that pensionary benefits are determined by the rules applicable at the time of retirement, and courts cannot compel the government to alter policy decisions that carry financial implications.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a retired IAS officer who served as principal secretary to the state government, superannuated on January 31, 2015, with an annual pension fixed at Rs 11,59,800. He later joined the Chhattisgarh PSC as a member on March 7, 2015, and was appointed its chairman on June 12, 2015. He retired from the commission on January 16, 2017, upon reaching the age of 62.
Pension Ceiling Under Previous Rules
Under Regulation 8(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations 2001, which existed during his retirement, the total combined pension from government service and the PSC could not exceed Rs 4,80,000 per annum for a chairman. Since Vishwakarma’s government pension alone exceeded this ceiling, the state denied him additional pension benefits.
Amendment Under 7th Pay Commission
Following the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission, the state government issued a notification on December 5, 2020, amending the rules to raise the combined pension ceiling to Rs 13,50,000 per annum. This amendment was made effective from April 1, 2018.
Petitioner's Representation and Rejection
Vishwakarma submitted a representation to the government in August 2021, demanding that his pension be recalculated under the revised ceiling or that the notification’s implementation date be shifted back to January 1, 2016, matching the pay revision timeline. He also claimed parity with another retired member, M S Paikra, who received an additional pension. The state government rejected his representation on August 13, 2021, prompting the writ petition.
Court's Observations and Ruling
Dismissing the plea, the division bench observed that the amended regulation applies only to those who retired on or after April 1, 2018. The court cited Supreme Court precedents establishing that fixing an effective date for a policy with financial implications remains the exclusive prerogative of the rule-making authority.
The bench also rejected the claim of parity with Paikra, noting that Paikra’s combined annual pension fell well below the old ceiling of Rs 4,68,000 specified for members, making him legally eligible for the benefit, unlike the petitioner.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the principle that pension benefits are governed by the rules in force at the time of retirement and that courts should not interfere with policy decisions that have financial consequences. The decision underscores the discretion of the rule-making authority in determining the effective date of amendments.
