Rajasthan HC rejects MES retiree’s claim for additional commuted pension value, cites doctrine of election

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed writ petitions of two retired Military Engineer Services employees who sought the differential commuted value of pension following revision under the 7th Central Pay Commission, holding that the doctrine of election bars a pensioner who opted to retain the old commutation structure from simultaneously claiming the enhanced lump-sum commuted value while continuing to draw the benefit of a lower monthly deduction.

A division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati observed that Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 cannot be read in isolation from Rule 5, which recognises the pensioner’s right of election in matters of commutation, and that the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare harmoniously co-exists with the statutory rules rather than overriding them.

“This Court finds that commutation of pension is not a severable or standalone benefit capable of being selectively enforced. The grant of an enhanced commuted value necessarily carries with it the corresponding consequence of a proportionately higher deduction from the monthly pension during the commutation period. The two constitute integral parts of the same statutory arrangement and cannot be artificially separated,” the bench held.

The two writ petitions — D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2025 (Omkar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/2025 (Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.) — arose from substantially similar orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, and were decided by a common judgment treating the Omkar Bharti petition as the lead case.

Omkar Bharti was initially appointed as a Switch Board Attendant in 1979 under the Military Engineer Services at Mount Abu Air Force and was subsequently promoted to Electrician, retiring on 31.01.2016 after more than thirty-six years of service. Upon retirement, his basic pension was fixed at Rs.9,475/- per month, and he commuted 40% of his pension, receiving a lump-sum commuted value of approximately Rs.3,72,655.

With the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations effective from 01.01.2016, the petitioner’s pension was revised to Rs.26,000/- per month. However, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 — which provided pensioners who had retired between 01.01.2016 and 04.08.2016 a special option either to retain the commutation already received or to avail commutation on the additionally commutable portion — the petitioner elected to retain the earlier commutation structure. Consequently, the monthly deduction on account of commutation remained at Rs.3,790/- (relatable to the pre-revised pension), and the petitioner continued drawing a net monthly pension of Rs.22,210/-.

The petitioner thereafter submitted representations claiming the differential commuted value under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1981, contending that the Rule mandated payment of the difference between the commuted value calculated on the enhanced pension and the commuted value already authorised. The competent authority rejected this claim by a speaking order dated 10.05.2022, and the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the rejection on 22.10.2024. Both petitioners then approached the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 10 confers a statutory entitlement to the differential commuted value upon retrospective revision of pension and that an executive instruction in the form of the Office Memorandum could not curtail a statutory benefit. It was further contended that the option exercised under the OM could not operate to defeat the substantive right under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1981.

The respondents countered that the petitioners had voluntarily exercised their option under the OM with full knowledge of its consequences and were therefore estopped from seeking a contrary benefit. Counsel submitted that Rule 10 must be read harmoniously with Rule 5 and the OM, and that acceptance of the rival contention would result in the petitioner receiving the additional lump-sum commuted value while retaining the advantage of a lower monthly deduction — a dual and unintended benefit which neither the Rules nor the OM contemplate.

The Court, after examining the financial implications in detail, found that by retaining the earlier commutation structure, the petitioner continued drawing Rs.22,210/- per month as against the Rs.15,600/- he would have received monthly had he opted for commutation on the revised pension. The additional lump sum now claimed was approximately Rs.6.50 lakhs.

“This Court is therefore of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt only that part of the revised commutation framework which is financially advantageous to him while disclaiming the corresponding obligations and consequences necessarily attached thereto. Such a course would be contrary to the scheme governing commutation of pension and would result in an inequitable and anomalous outcome,” the bench observed.

Invoking the doctrine of election, the bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgments in R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470, and State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144, which have consistently held that a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously, nor accept benefits flowing from a particular course of action and thereafter challenge its foundation for securing an additional advantage.

The bench further held that the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 did not override or amend Rule 10 but operated in a supplementary field by facilitating the exercise of choice in the transitional situation created by retrospective revision of pension. Rule 10, the Court observed, “merely provides the consequence that follows where a pension already commuted is subsequently revised and enhanced retrospectively” and cannot be read divorced from Rule 5, which “recognises and preserves the pensioner’s right of election in matters relating to commutation.”

Both writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Title: Omkar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2025 (lead); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/2025 (connected)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Shyam Prasad Singh

Counsel for respondent: Ms. Pintu Pareek, Ms. Yukti Joshi for Mr. Vivek Shrimali