The Supreme Court has upheld the Uttarakhand Government's decision to deduct the pension received by retired government employees from the salary payable to them after their appointment as Chairman or Members of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC). The Court held that such a deduction, authorised under Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2004, does not violate the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed two appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgments that had declared the regulation unconstitutional.
Background
The dispute arose after Lieutenant General (Retired) M.C. Bhandari was appointed Chairman of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in November 2006, following his retirement from the Indian Army. His basic salary was fixed at Rs. 26,000 per month, but the State deducted Rs. 17,627, representing his military pension.
In the second case, Sohan Lal, a retired Provincial Civil Service officer, was appointed as a Member of the Commission. His basic salary was fixed at Rs. 22,500 per month, from which his pension of Rs. 11,025 was deducted.
Both appointees challenged the deductions before the High Court, arguing that their pensions were earned through previous government service and should not be adjusted against their salaries for the new constitutional positions.
The Uttarakhand High Court accepted their arguments on April 15, 2010, declaring Regulation 7(2) unconstitutional under Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution. It also directed the State to reimburse the deducted amounts.
Examining Regulation 7(2), the Supreme Court explained that the provision allowed the Governor to decide whether the pension of a retired government employee appointed to the Commission should be withheld wholly or partly, or whether the salary should be reduced accordingly.
The Bench clarified that the pension was not permanently withdrawn but remained suspended during the person's tenure as Chairman or Member. Explaining this distinction, the Court observed:
"At the end of the tenure of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Member, the entitlement to pension which was kept in abeyance would revive and the petitioners-respondent No.1 herein would get the pension deducted during the tenure of their chairmanship or membership of the Uttarakhand PSC. In other words, there is no withdrawing of the pension, it is only the withholding during the period when the posts of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Member of the Uttarakhand PSC is held."
The Court further rejected the High Court's reliance on the principle of equal pay for equal work, observing that the doctrine had no relevance to the issue of withholding previously earned pension.
It also relied on its earlier decision in Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi v. State of Haryana, which recognised that pension entitlement could remain suspended while a person held another public office.
The Bench also noted that both respondents had accepted their appointments when the 2004 Regulations were already in force. They had continued in their respective positions for more than two years before challenging the applicability of Regulation 7(2).
The Court observed:
"Similarly, a Government servant or an employee, who accepts the post cannot afterwards be permitted to resile from or to agitate in respect of the service conditions and the service regulations attached to the post which he accepted."
Concluding that the High Court had committed an error in declaring Regulation 7(2) unconstitutional, the Supreme Court set aside both judgments dated April 15, 2010, passed in the respective writ petitions.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand were allowed.
