ORDER 1. The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner/employer being aggrieved by the Award dated 31.1.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in Case No.24/A/I.D.Act/2016 (Reference), by which the termination of the services of the respondent has been held to be bad and direction has been issued for reinstatement alongwith 25% backwages. 2. Short facts of the case are that initially, the respondent/workman was engaged as Steno-typist in the respondent/department in the year 2007 and his services were terminated on 28.9.2009 by an oral order. Against the said termination, a Writ Petition No.5657 of 2015(S) was filed by the respondent/workman before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2015, with a liberty to the respondent/employee to raise an industrial dispute and on the basis of the said liberty, the respondent had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Indore, where conciliation proceedings ended into failure and the case was referred to Labour Court No.2, Gwalior for adjudication of the industrial dispute. The terms of reference before the Labour Court is reproduced below :-- ßD;k lqjsUnz dqekj xqIrk firk vkseizdk'k dk fu;kstd }kjk fd;k x;k lsoki`FkDddj.k oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks lsokfu;qfDr fdl lgk;rk dk ik= gS ,oa bl laca/k] esa lsokfu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkus pkfg,\ß 3. After the aforesaid reference, the learned Labour Court registered the case and issued notice to the parties for filing statement of claims. The employee filed statement of claim alleging that since he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year therefore, his services could not have been retrenched without payment of compensation as well as without following any procedure of law, a claim was raised to reinstate him into the service with full back-wages. The employee filed statement of claim alleging that since he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year therefore, his services could not have been retrenched without payment of compensation as well as without following any procedure of law, a claim was raised to reinstate him into the service with full back-wages. The petitioner/department filed a reply alleging that there was no regular appointment given to the respondent in accordance with service Rules and neither any advertisement was issued nor eligible persons were considered alongwith the respondent/employee at the time of his appointment in the year 2007, rather his appointment has all along been shown to be for a fixed period subject to extensions and such further continuation for a fixed period, without following the procedure prescribed under the rules and without allowing other eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for regular appointment, thus, he had no right to the post. After appreciating the evidence and perusing the record, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned award dated 31.1.2023 observing that since termination of the respondent/employee, who has worked more than 08 years, was illegal and was not proper, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith 20% back-wages. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the Award, the petitioner/employer has filed the present petition before this Court seeking following reliefs : "(1) That the impugned Award dated 31.1.2023 declared on 23.3.2023 Annexure-P/1, may kindly be directed to be sat-aside. (2) That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. (3) That the cost of this petition be also granted in favor of petitioners. (4) That the record of Labour Court No. 2 Gwalior in Case No. 24/A/I.D. Act / 2016 (Reference) may kindly be called and perused." 4. (3) That the cost of this petition be also granted in favor of petitioners. (4) That the record of Labour Court No. 2 Gwalior in Case No. 24/A/I.D. Act / 2016 (Reference) may kindly be called and perused." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/employer has submitted before this Court that the impugned order dated 31.1.2023 passed by the Labour Court allowing the application of respondent, is manifestly illegal, therefore, is liable to be set aside, as it has wrongly interpreted the provisions of retrenchment and wrongly given finding of 08 year continuous service of the respondent which is clear from the evidence of both the parties and documents on record exhibited before it that the respondent was never appointed in the regular service of petitioners' company rather he was appointed on contact basis for a period of 06 month from 27.6.2006 to 31.12.2006 at Collector rate and again for 06 months from 27.2.2007 to 27.8.2007, thereafter, the contract of respondent was never renewed, thus, his removal would not come under the definition of retrenchment. 5. It was further submitted that the learned Labour Court has not considered the fact that after the contract period was over, the respondent/employee was engaged through different service providers and lastly, his engagement was extended from 1.7.2015 to 31.7.2015 through Service Provider M/s. Industrial Labour Supplier, thereafter the contract for supply the manpower was given to M/s Balaji Detective and Security Services Indore, but the respondent/employee did not made them as party respondents, it was thus prayed that on account of misjoinder of necessary parties, the present petition be dismissed. 6. It was further submitted that in case of termination of a daily wage employee, the reinstatement with back-wages is not automatic and instead, the employee should be given monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which will meet the ends of justice, which the learned Labour Court had wrongly awarded. In the aforesaid regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, decided on 23.9.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6890 of 2022. 7. In the aforesaid regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, decided on 23.9.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6890 of 2022. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/employee has submitted that the petitioners did not file any document to prove that the respondent, who was appointed as Steno-typist in the respondent/department in the year 2007 has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and as the petitioner was in possession of every document, it should had proved that the respondent/employee has not worked for the said statutory period since it is well established principle of law that if a party, who is in possession of best evidence, fails to produce the same then, an adverse inference is to be drawn against it, which the learned learned Labour Court has rightly drawn and held that the respondent was illegally retrenched, therefore, he was rightly directed to be reinstated with 20% back-wages. In support of this argument, reliance was placed in the matter of Union of India v. Ex. Maj. Sudarshan Gupta reported in (2009) 6 SCC 298 to point out that the non-production of the official records will impact an adverse inference against the employer. It was thus submitted that the present petition, being devoid of any sum and substance, deserves to be dismissed, as there is no illegality or perversity committed by the learned Labour Court in passing the award dated 31.1.2023. 8. In alternate, it was argued that if this Court finds that looking to the nature of the employment, the order of reinstatement is not proper, then, the compensation in lieu of reinstatement be directed to be paid in conformity with the guidelines laid by the apex Court. So far as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, the counsel for the respondent/employee has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 . 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. So far as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, the counsel for the respondent/employee has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 . 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. So far as the findings given by the Court below that the termination of the respondent was illegal, since the petitioners being the employer and in possession of the relevant document, had not challenged the said finding to show that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days and in wake of well-established principle of law that if a party is in possession of best evidence and fails to produce the same, then an adverse inference is to be drawn against it, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below did not commit any mistake by holding that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days. 11. So far as the question of reinstatement with back-wages or with compensation of amount is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under :-- "33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious." 12. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar v. Anoop Ganaptrao Bobde reported in (2017) 11 SCC 244 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the proper as the respondent had merely worked for a period of one year. 13. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious." 12. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar v. Anoop Ganaptrao Bobde reported in (2017) 11 SCC 244 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the proper as the respondent had merely worked for a period of one year. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, reported in (2014)7 SCC 190 has held as under :-- ''19. The following passages from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the question of reinstatement: (BSNL case, SCC pp. 187-88, paras 29-30) "29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL v. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily-wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2 to 3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 30. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgments, as is clear from the following discussion: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras 2-4) 2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a dailywager has been brought to an end in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question. 3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. 3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14) "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. *** 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order 9 of retrenchment passed in violation of section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, dailywagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily-wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." 4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated : (SCC p. 777, para 11) 11. This Court has distinguished between a daily-wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." 4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated : (SCC p. 777, para 11) 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as dailywagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice.'" **** 21. We make it clear that reference to Umadevi, in the aforesaid discussion is in a situation where the dispute referred pertained to termination alone. Going by the principles carved out above, had it been a case where the issue is limited only to the validity of termination, Appellant 1 would not be entitled to reinstatement…….'' 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 337 has held as under :-- "6. Time is now ripe to turn to the next question as to whether it is obligatory to direct reinstatement when the concerned regulation is found to be void. In the sphere of employer-employee relations in public sector undertakings, to which Article 12 of the Constitution of India is attracted, it cannot be posited that reinstatement must invariably follow as a consequence of holding that an order of termination of service of an employee is void. No doubt in regard to "blue collar" workmen and "white collar" employees other than those belonging to the managerial or similar high level cadre, reinstatement would be a rule, and compensation in lieu thereof a rare exception. Insofar as the high level managerial cadre is concerned, the matter deserves to be viewed from an altogether different perspective -- a larger perspective which must take into account the demands of National Interest and the resultant compulsion to ensure the success of the public sector in its competitive co-existence with the private sector. The public sector can never fulfil its life aim or successfully vie with the private sector if it is not managed by capable and efficient personnel with unimpeachable integrity and the requisite vision, who enjoy the fullest confidence of the "policy-makers" of such undertakings. The public sector can never fulfil its life aim or successfully vie with the private sector if it is not managed by capable and efficient personnel with unimpeachable integrity and the requisite vision, who enjoy the fullest confidence of the "policy-makers" of such undertakings. Then and then only can the public sector undertaking achieve the goals of (1) maximum production for the benefit of the community, (2) social justice for workers, consumers and the people, and (3) reasonable return on the public funds invested in the undertaking. 7. It is in public interest that such undertakings or their Boards of Directors are not compelled and obliged to entrust their managements to personnel in whom, on reasonable grounds, they have no trust or faith and with whom they are in a bona fide manner unable to function harmoniously as a team working arm-in-arm with success in the aforesaid three- dimensional sense as their common goal. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court at the time of passing the consequential order, for the Court has full discretion in the matter of granting relief, and the Court can sculpture the relief to suit the needs of the matter at hand. The Court, if satisfied that ends of justice so demand, can certainly direct that the employer shall have the option not to reinstate provided the employer pays reasonable compensation as indicated by the Court." 15. In the matter of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra), the apex Court had also taken a similar view. 16. In the present case, this Court has concurred with the findings of the learned Labour Court with regard to the termination of the respondent was to be illegal, but this Court, looking to the date of termination i.e. 1.8.2015, his nature of service is contractual and the length of the service which is about 08 years as is evident from para 16 of the Award dated 31.1.2023, is of the considered opinion that the Court below should have directed for payment of monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and 25% of back-wages. 17. 17. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 31.1.2023 passed by Labour Court No.1, Gwalior is modified to the extent that the respondent /employee shall be entitled for monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner/department within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed and disposed of. 2025 (3) JLJ 203 (DIVISION BENCH) Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ. Trilokchand Dhaneriya v. The State of M.P. & Others Writ Petitions No. 34088 of 2024, 34470 of 2024, 35544 of 2024, 35546 of 2024, 36261 of 2024, 36262 of 2024, 36263 of 2024, 36591 of 2024, 36771 of 2024, 37350 of 2024, 37839 of 2024, 37870 of 2024, 38142 of 2024, 38182 of 2024, 38211 of 2024, 38997 of 2024, 39849 of 2024, 40020 of 2024, 40023 of 2024, 40085 of 2024, 40128 of 2024, 40254 of 2024, 40337 of 2024, 40338 of 2024, 40623 of 2024, 40765 of 2024, 40771 of 2024, 40902 of 2024, 41312 of 2024, 3539 of 2025, 3561 of 2025, 8422 of 2025, 9456 of 2025, 9477 of 2025, 12509 of 2025, 12510 of 202513528 of 2025, 13981 of 2025, 14993 of 2025, 14996 of 2025, 15242 of 2025 and 17355 of 2025 (Indore); Decided on . 30.6.2025 Aditya Goyal, Karpe Mohan Prakhar, Yash Nagar and Dheeraj Singh Pawar for respective petitioners; Sudeep Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State; Yogesh Hemnani for other respondents. (1) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- R. 10(1) -- restoration of commuted portion of pension -- petitioner opted for commutation of pension -- respondents sanctioned it vide order dated 5.10.2013 -- sub-rule (1) substituted vide Notification dated 7.2.2000 will apply, according to which petitioner is entitled to restoration of commuted portion of pension after attaining age of 75 years or 15 years from date of retirement, whichever is earlier -- petitioner neither attained age of 75 years, nor 15 years lapsed from date of retirement -- pension not liable to be restored -- period during which repayment by way of EMI was not given to respondents due to stay granted by Court, liable to be paid by petitioners along with regular scheduled EMI. 2024: PHHC: 157352-DB relied on. [Paras 12 & 19 (2) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 2024: PHHC: 157352-DB relied on. [Paras 12 & 19 (2) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 8 and 9 -- rate of interest -- commuted amount paid to pensioner is completely tax-free and without guarantee, unlike bank loans or private loans -- commutation of pension can never be equated or compared with loans given by banks or private persons, which are commercial in nature -- petitioner had knowledge about rate of interest at time of commutation, therefore, principle of estoppel will apply -- petitioner voluntarily availed benefit under the Rules, hence, cannot raise any grievance -- petitioner, after understanding rate of interest payable for period of 15 years, accepted commuted amount from State Government -- now at time of repayment, petitioner cannot challenge terms and conditions of loan, that too statutory in nature -- it is purely a policy matter, in which experts decide rate of interest to be applied -- cannot be interfered by High Court. [Paras 14 & 15 (3) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 8 and 9 -- rate of interest -- petitioners aggrieved by fixed rate of interest -- there is no provision in the Rules about floating rate of interest at par with RBI. [Paras 14 & 15 (3) Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- Rr. 8 and 9 -- rate of interest -- petitioners aggrieved by fixed rate of interest -- there is no provision in the Rules about floating rate of interest at par with RBI. [Para 18 ¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 10¼1½ && isU'ku ds dE;wVsM Hkkx dk çR;korZu && ;kph us isU'ku ds dE;wVs'ku dk fodYi pquk && çR;FkhZx.k us vkns'k fnukad 5-10-2013 }kjk mldh eatwjh nh && vfèklwpuk fnukad 7-2-2000 }kjk çfrLFkkfir mifu;e ¼1½ ykxw gksxk] ftlds vuqlkj ;kph 75 o"kZ dh o; çkIr gksus ij vFkok lsokfuo`fÙk ds fnukad ls 15 o"kZ ds i'pkr~ tks Hkh igys gks] isU'ku ds dE;wVsM Hkkx ds çR;korZu dk gdnkj gksxk && ;kph us u rks 75 o"kZ dh o; çkIr dh] u lsokfuo`fÙk ds fnukad ls 15 o"kZ O;ixr gq, && isU'ku çR;kofrZr ugha dh tk,xh && U;k;ky; ds jksd vkns'k ds dkj.k ftl vof/k ds nkSjku çR;FkhZx.k dks bZ,evkb ds ek/;e ls çfrlank; ugha fd;k x;kA ;kph }kjk mldk lank; fu;fer fu;r bZ,evkb ds lkFk&lkFk fd;k tk,xkA 2024 % ih,p,plh % 157352 Mhch voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 19 ¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ && fu- 8 rFkk 9 && C;kt dh nj && isU'kuHkksxh dks lanÙk dE;wVsM jde iw.kZr% dj&eqä vkSj fcuk fdlh çR;kHkwfr ds gksrh gS] tSlk cSad ds _.k ;k futh _.k esa ugha gksrk && isU'ku ds dE;wVs'ku dh lekurk ;k rqyuk dHkh Hkh cSadksa ;k futh O;fä;ksa }kjk fn, x, _.k ls ugha dh tk ldrh] ftudh ç—fr okf.kfT;d gksrh gS && ;kph dks dE;wVs'ku ds le; C;kt dh nj ds ckjs esa Kkr Fkk] vr%- foca/k dk fl)kar ykxw gksxk && ;kph us fu;eksa ds v/khu Qk;ns dk ykHk LosPNk ls fy;k blfy, og f'kdk;r ugha dj ldrk && ;kph us] 15 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, lans; C;kt dh nj le>us ds i'pkr~] jkT; ljdkj ls dE;wVsM jde Lohdkj dh && vc çfrlank; ds le;] ;kph _.k ds fuca/kuksa rFkk 'krks± ij vk{ksi ugha dj ldrk] og Hkh dkuwuh ç—fr ds && ;g fo'kq)r% uhfr dk fo"k; gS] ftlesa ykxw gksus okyh C;kt dh nj fo'ks"kK fofuf'pr djrs gSa && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15 ¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku dk dE;wVs'ku½ fu;e] 1996 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 8 rFkk 9 && C;kt dh nj && ;kph C;kt dh fLFkj nj ls O;fFkr && fu;eksa esa Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ds leewY; ij ifjorZu'khy C;kt dh nj ds ckjs esa dksbZ mica/k ughaA ¼iSjk 18 ORDER Rusia, J. -- Since the subject matter in these writ petitions is identical, with the joint request of parties, all the petitions are analogously heard and being decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.34088 of 2024 which are narrated hereunder. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Rule 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 as amended vide Notification dated 5.2.2013 and also the Notification dated 3.4.2013 which provides for restoration of commuted part of pension after a period of 15 years as illegal, arbitrary being ultra-vires of the provisions of Constitution of India. The petitioner is seeking refund of the excess amount recovered from the period beyond the period of 10 years and 08 months along with interest @ 18% per annum. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 2. The petitioner is a senior citizen of India and comes under the category of pensioner of the respondents. The petitioner retired from the post of Office Assistant, Grade – I on 31.12.2012 from the office of Joint Secretary – III, the Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as MPPKVVCL). 3. The MPPKVVCL is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (Now 2013) incorporated after bifurcation of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The MPPKVVCL is engaged in the sale and distribution of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh and adopted the Service Rules framed by the Government from time to time. 4. The State Government, in the exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made rules known as the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (in short 'the Rules of 1996') which came into force w.e.f. 6th day of February, 1995. The rules have been made applicable to those Government Servants who may be entitled or to have authorize any class of pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 etc. 5. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 provides for a Restriction on the commutation of pension and rule 5 provides for a Limit on the commutation of pension. As per rule 6, the commutation of pension shall become absolute on which the application in Form 'A' is received by the Head of Office and as per proviso, the reduction in the amount of pension on account commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of commuted value of pension. As per rule 6, the commutation of pension shall become absolute on which the application in Form 'A' is received by the Head of Office and as per proviso, the reduction in the amount of pension on account commutation shall be operative from the date of receipt of commuted value of pension. Rule 8 prescribes the Calculation of the commuted value of pension, according to which the lump sum payable to an applicant shall be calculated in accordance with the value table appended to these rules. Rule 11 provides for the application for commutation of pension. Which requires interpretation in this writ petition. 6. After retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2012, respondents vide pension order dated 14.12.2012 sanctioned pension of Rs.15,140/- per month. The petitioner opted for commutation of pension under the Rules of 1996 and vide order dated 5.10.2013, an amount of Rs.5,06,881/- was determined and paid to the petitioner against commutation of 1/3rd portion of pension. In order to repay the amount, an EMI of Rs.5,046/- i.e. @ 1/3rd of the pension was fixed for the period of 180 months by way of deduction from the amount of monthly pension as per rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1996. The petitioner started getting the reduced pension of Rs.10,094/- w.e.f. December, 2013. At the time of commutation of pension, the petitioner was aged about 59 years, therefore, as per the table, factor 8.371 was applied and an amount of Rs.5,06,881/- was paid to the petitioner. At that time, the interest was 8% per annum and was applied for repayment of the commuted amount in 180 months @ EMI of Rs.5,046/. The pension is liable to be restored on 1.1.2019. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rate of interest i.e. 8% applied in the year 2013 is liable to be reduced gradually with the rate of interest reduced by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from time to time at par for the loan given by the Bank or other financial institutions. 8. As per the Rules, the pension of the petitioner shall be restored after 15 years from the date of actual payment of commutation amount. 8. As per the Rules, the pension of the petitioner shall be restored after 15 years from the date of actual payment of commutation amount. According to the petitioner the commuted value of the pension sanctioned in the month of November, 2013 was Rs.5,06,881/- and in 11 years 03 months, the respondents have recovered Rs.6,81,2010/- and in 15 years, the respondents would recover an amount of Rs.9,08,280/-. Therefore, they are recovering the excess amount of Rs.2,27,070/- from the pensioner. Hence, the relevant rule of the Rules of 1996 be declared ultra vires. 9. The sole grievance of the petitioner is about the fixed rate of interest @ 8% per annum which is on the higher side for 15 years and the same is liable to be reduced up to 5 or 6 % gradually. In order to get interim relief the petitioner has done his own calculation and submitted before this Court that the amount of commuted pension had already been paid in excess, therefore, further payment be stayed. This Court, believing on the statement of petitioner has stayed the impugned recovery. REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS 10. After notice, the respondents have filed a reply by submitting that no excess amount is being recovered from the petitioner. The EMI, which was fixed at the time of commutation of pension is being maintained for a period of 15 years which is as per rule 8 of the Rules of 1996. There is no such reduction of the rate of interest by the State Government in the Rules of 1996, therefore, the respondents cannot reduce the rate of interest. OUR APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION 11. The Rules in question relating to the commutation of pension came into force in the year 1996. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 provides for the Restoration of commuted portion of pension. Under this rule, the pensioner shall be entitled for restoration of the pension from the first date following the month in which he attained the age of 70 years. This rule was amended by a Notification dated 7.2.2000, by which the commuted portion of the pension will be restored from the first day of the following month after 15 years from the date of retirement. This rule was amended by a Notification dated 7.2.2000, by which the commuted portion of the pension will be restored from the first day of the following month after 15 years from the date of retirement. It was further amended by Notification dated 5.2.2013, according to which the pensioner, who has commuted a portion of his pension, will have his commuted portion of pension restored from the first day of the following month in which he attains the age of 75 years or 15 years from the date of retirement, whichever is later which is reproduced below :-- ''(1) A pensioner, who has commuted a portion of his pension, will have his commuted portion of pension restored from the first day of the following month in which he attains the age of 75 years or 15 years from the date of retirement, whichever is later.'' 12. In the present case, the petitioner opted for commutation of pension and respondents sanctioned the same vide order dated 5.10.2013, therefore, sub-rule (1) substituted vide Notification dated 7.2.2000 will apply, according to which the petitioner is entitled to restoration of commuted portion of pension after attaining the age of 75 years or 15 years from the date of retirement whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner neither attained the age of 75 years nor 15 years have lapsed from the rate of retirement. Hence, the pension is not liable to be restored. 13. According to the petitioner, if the Reserve Bank of India is reducing the rate of interest from time to time on the loans taken from the Banks and other financial institutions, at the same time the Government of Madhya Pradesh should also have reduced the rate of interest from time to time. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submits that apart from the rate of interest, there are other factors which were taken into consideration by fixing the factor under rule 8 of the Rules of 1996 as the pensioner gets income taxfree loan from the Government / employer that too without any additional security or guarantee. 14. The State Government amended the table appended under rule 9 from time to time. The last amendment was made vide Notification dated 7.2.2000. The commuted amount paid to the pensioner is completely tax-free without guarantee unlike bank loans or private loans. 14. The State Government amended the table appended under rule 9 from time to time. The last amendment was made vide Notification dated 7.2.2000. The commuted amount paid to the pensioner is completely tax-free without guarantee unlike bank loans or private loans. The commutation of pension can never be equated or compared with loans given by banks or private persons which is commercial in nature. The petitioner had knowledge about the rate of interest at the time of commutation, therefore, the Principle of Estoppel will apply. The petitioner, at the subsequent stage, cannot challenge that the rate of interest is fixed as per statute with the consent of the parties. The petitioner voluntarily availed the benefit under the Rules of 1996 and, hence, cannot raise any grievances. 15. At the cost of repetition, there was no compulsion from the respondent side to the pensioner to take the benefit of commutation of pension, it is a voluntary act of the petitioner. The petitioner, after understanding the rate of interest payable for a period of 15 years, accepted the commuted amount from the State Government. Now at the time of repayment, the petitioner cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the loan that too statutory in nature. It is purely a policy matter, in which the experts decide the rate of interest to be applied under the Rules of 1996 which cannot be interfered by the High Court. 16. Before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, the constitutional validity of a provision of Chapter – 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume – II was challenged by 808 pensioners. Vide judgment dated 27.11.2024 delivered in the case of Shila Devi & Others v. The State of Punjab & Others and Others petitions Neutral Citation 2024:PHHC:157352-DB, the Division Bench has dismissed. Paragraphs – 19, 20, 27 & 28 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :-- ''19. Vide judgment dated 27.11.2024 delivered in the case of Shila Devi & Others v. The State of Punjab & Others and Others petitions Neutral Citation 2024:PHHC:157352-DB, the Division Bench has dismissed. Paragraphs – 19, 20, 27 & 28 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :-- ''19. A similar controversy had been raised in case of Forum of Retired IPS Officers (Foripso) v. Union of India and another, 2019(2) AD (Delhi) 581, challenging Rule 10.9 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, which provided for recovery of the amount of commuted pension in 15 years and petitioners therein sought a direction to respondents to reduce the period of recovery from 15 years to actual recovery period of commuted amount i.e., years of purchases without interest with an addition of two years. Arguments as raised in the said petition and as noted by the Delhi High Court read as under :-- "7. The petitioner claims that restoration of commutation of full pension after 15 years is arbitrary and lacks a mathematical basis and foundation. Retirement age for central government employees was raised to 60 years with effect from 1st May, 1998. Commutation factor in view of increase in age of retirement would stand reduced from 10.46 applicable at the age of 59 years to 9.81 applicable at the age of 60 years. As per the new commutation table made effective from 2nd September, 2008 the commutation factor has been downgraded from 9.81 to 8.194 for 60 years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid reduction in the commutation factor, the period for restoration of commuted pension has been retained and continues to be 15 years. Secondly, permissible commutation was increased from 33% of the basic pension to 40% of the basic pension. Thirdly, the respondents for the purpose of commutation i.e. for quantifying the percentage of amount to be paid on commutation, had based the table on interest payable @ 4.75% per annum, which interest was increased/enhanced to 8% per annum in the new table for the retirees with effect from 2nd September, 2008. Fourthly, the commutation provisions have not kept up with time as the life expectancy has increased from 57 years in 1987 to more than 68.5 years at present. Average life expectancy for the relevant group, i.e. the government servants as per WHO statistics is 77 years. Government servants have a much higher life expectancy than the national average. Fourthly, the commutation provisions have not kept up with time as the life expectancy has increased from 57 years in 1987 to more than 68.5 years at present. Average life expectancy for the relevant group, i.e. the government servants as per WHO statistics is 77 years. Government servants have a much higher life expectancy than the national average. Further the commuted pension is paid to retirees after they clear the medical examination/screening which reduces the risk factor of an early death. In support of the contentions, reference was made to Chapter 136 of the report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which had recommended reduction of the period of recovery of commuted pension to 12 years from 15 years. This recommendation, it was argued, was unjustifiably and arbitrarily not accepted by the Central Government, though some State Governments like Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Punjab had permitted restoration of full pension after 12 years of commutation." 20. It was held in the case of Forum of Retired IPS Officers (Foripso) v. Union of India and another (supra), that issues related to commutation of pension, factor to be applied, restoration of full or part of the pension are complex and vexed questions being subject matter of several Pay Commission Reports. Actuarial calculations besides financial implications make the administrative exercise convoluted and tedious. The Court would thus not step into the cumbersome exercise and interfere until and unless there is complete arbitrariness and discrimination which is ex-facie apparent. It was held as under :-- "16. Increase in life expectancy and its effect on commuted pension cannot be viewed in isolation. Several factors, figures and the entire pension provisions on the whole including cost to the exchequer have to be taken into consideration. Commutation table can take into consideration periodical increase in salary and better saving capacity during service period due to increase and enhanced pay scales. Courts would hesitate and not go by one formula and mathematical calculations on assumption and precept that the formula would be more fair, just and appropriate. There can be many formulas. Calculations are complex, convoluted and a tricky task. Fixation of payment of pension or commutation of pension, etc. are highly difficult and cumbersome exercise which the Court would not like to step into, undertake and even interfere unless there is complete arbitrariness and discrimination that is ex-facie apparent. There can be many formulas. Calculations are complex, convoluted and a tricky task. Fixation of payment of pension or commutation of pension, etc. are highly difficult and cumbersome exercise which the Court would not like to step into, undertake and even interfere unless there is complete arbitrariness and discrimination that is ex-facie apparent. Courts on perceived wisdom would not declare the table as flawed, acting and preforming the role of an actuarial. Every government, including the Central Government, has to take into consideration their available resources and funds, for any increase and enhancement in pension requires money which may well have to be diverted from other schemes or would result in reduction of funds available for poor, the marginalized and needy. 17. Pension, commutation of pension, etc. are policy matters, which are examined and decided on the basis of recommendations of the Pay Commissions by the authorities. No doubt, an executive order or policy decision is not beyond the scope of judicial review but the Courts do not go into the nitty gritty of the policy to substitute the table by making various computations and calculations, which are possible by different formulas or by applying a particular formula. Broadly, policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review when they are unconstitutional being de hors the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation and if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or larger policy in matters of price fixation, pay fixation, etc. Courts would not interfere unless formula or method adopted is per se and ex facie irrational, arbitrary or can be struck down on the four grounds mentioned above." 27. It is a matter of record that all the petitioners before us are retired employees who have admittedly availed of the benefit of commutation of pension. Admittedly, pension of some of the employees also stands restored. All the petitioners were in service at the time of issuance of notification dated 21.7.1998. They never raised any objection to the stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Having availed of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the grievances as noted above, at this stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by them with open eyes. They never raised any objection to the stipulated period of 15 years for restoration of pension. Having availed of a benefit which is clearly voluntary in nature, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the grievances as noted above, at this stage, to seek a variation in the terms and conditions accepted by them with open eyes. They are not entitled to seek recovery of the amount so deposited by them in accordance with the accepted terms and conditions. 28. In this factual matrix, the argument that it is a continuing cause of action as it pertains to pension, is clearly unacceptable. There is no question of any direction to the State to restore pension on expiry of 11.5 years or 12 years as prayed for or to refund the amount so recovered. It is necessarily for the State to take a considered decision thereon after delving into the complex questions and underlying parameters which would be involved for assessment of the issues. Admittedly, matters related to commutation of pension are complex affairs involving vexed issues traversing diverse field which calls for application of specialized expertise. It is a settled position that in such matters the Court would venture only in case of manifest and apparent arbitrariness. Learned counsel for petitioners were unable to point out any material on record to indicate that the formula adopted is per se and ex facie irrational or arbitrary which calls for interference by this Court.'' 17. The respondents have prepared a chart to show that no excess recovery is being made from the petitioners and they are strictly recovering the amount as per the rate of interest, EMI and number of months fixed at the time of commutation of pension. The chart is reproduced below :-- IMAGE 18. However, the petitioners are not disputing these figures mentioned in the chart, but are aggrieved by the fixed rate of interest. There is no provision in the rules of 1996 about the floating rate of interest at par with the RBI. 19. As held above, it is purely a policy matter and within the domain of the legislature to amend the rules and fix the landing rate of interest, period of restoration of pension etc. Hence, all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed. 19. As held above, it is purely a policy matter and within the domain of the legislature to amend the rules and fix the landing rate of interest, period of restoration of pension etc. Hence, all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed. The period during which, the repayment by way of EMI was not given to the respondents due to the stay granted by this Court is liable to be paid by the petitioners along with regular scheduled EMI. 20. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The order passed by this Court in the present case shall govern the connected writ petitions also, therefore, other writ petitions also stand dismissed with similar observations. No order as to cost. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the connected writ petitions also.