Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mohan Lal Kaundal vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 24 September, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 63/1448/2024
24th day of September, 2025
Circuit Sitting at Shimla
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Mohan Lal Kaundal S/o Lt Sh Ishria Ram, Aged 72 Years, Retired as Sr.
TOA from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi, under Chief
General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, R/O Vpo
Lohara Teh Balh Distt Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, PIN 175027. (Retired
Group C).
2. Khem Chand S/o Lat Sh. Lobhi Ram, Aged 73 Years, Retired as Sr. TOA
from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi, under Chief
General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, R/O
Village Sai, P.O. Jugahan, Teh. Sundernagar, Distt Mandi, Himachal
Pradesh. (Retired Group 'C')
3. Mohan Lal Chandel S/o Late Sh. Chuhru Ram, Aged 74 Years, Retired
as Sr. TOA from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi, under
Chief General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, R/O
Village Syanh, P.O. Lohara, The. Balh, Distt Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
(Retired Group 'C')
4. Sewa Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh, Aged 73 Years, Retired as Sr. TOA
from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi, under Chief
General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, R/O
Village Dadour, P.O. Dhaban, The. Balh, Distt Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
(Retired Group 'C')
5. Harish Kumar Vaidya S/o Late Sh. Lal Man Vaidya, Aged 69 Years,
Retired as SDE from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi,
under Chief General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle,
Shimla, R/O 29/10 Post Office Road, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh,
PIN-175001. (Retired Group 'B')
6. Prem Singh S/o Late Sh. Jaimal Singh, Aged 71Years, Retired as DET
from General Manager Telecom District, BSNL Mandi, under Chief
General Manager Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla, R/O
Village Chakkar, Near Milk Plant, P.O. Gutkar, The. Balh, Distt. Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh, PIN-175021.
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K. B. Sharma proxy for Mr. Sanjay Kaul)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary (Pension), Department of Pension &
Pensioners' Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New
Delhi-110003.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of
Personnel, PG and Pensions Government of India North Block, New
Delhi - 110001.
BHANU PARTAP 2025.10.13 17:22:56+05'30'
2
3. Secretary, Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communication,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
4. Controller of Communication Accounts, Himachal Telecom Circle,
Claremont Building, Near Vidhan Sabha, Chaura Maidan, Shimla,
Himachal Pradesh PIN-171004.
5. The Chief General Manager Himachal Pradesh Telecom Circle, SDA
Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009.
6. General Manager Telecom District, BSNL, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATES: Mr. Bharat Bhushan for R1-4 and Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr.
Adv along with Mr. Mukul Sharma for R5&6)
O R D E R (Oral)
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in the matter in hand has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated 04.12.2024 in the matter of Surender Singh Jakhar and Ors v Union of India and others (CWP No.24145 of 2024 (O&M). This Tribunal in O.A No.743/2024 and connected matters titled as Prem Chand and others v Union of India and others vide order dated 11.03.2025 has followed the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Tribunal is as under:
"7. We have also perused the judgments relied upon by the respondents. In Shila Devi's case (supra), the petitioners are retired employees of State of Punjab, who opted for commutation of their pension in terms of applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and they challenged sub rule (2) of Rule 11.1 of PCS Rules, which is para materia to the Rule 10-A of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (under challenge in the instant case) and provides that the portion of pension commuted by a pensioner shall be restored after completion of a period of 15 years from the actual date of commutation. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the bunch of 808 Writ Petitions vide BHANU PARTAP 2025.10.13 17:22:56+05'30' 3 order dated 27.11.2024 in Shila Devi's case (supra) after holding that "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. The relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-
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 21.07.1998. 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 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.
29. At this stage, we take note of the specific stand of the State as projected before us that it would be ready to examine the scheme/period of commutation while taking into consideration changes, if any, in underlying parameters and that an Expert Committee would be constituted in this respect BHANU PARTAP 2025.10.13 17:22:56+05'30' 4 which would be assisted by Recognized Expert Agency or Institution(s) which possess requisite knowledge and competence in assessing such matters. In this process the Committee would also invite and consider submission and representations in the matter from Associations of pensioners in the State.
30. Keeping in view the fair stand on the part of the State, we do not find any ground for issuance of any particular direction in this regard except to observe that in terms of the stand as projected before us, it is expected that necessary steps in this regard would be taken expeditiously by the State.
31. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as narrated and discussed in foregoing paras, all the 808 writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost. It is clarified that the State is entitled to effect recoveries which were stayed by way of interim orders in the writ petitions. Such recovery however be made in a staggered manner to obviate any hardship to the pensioners." (Emphasis supplied)
8. Further, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the case of Surender Singh Jakhar and Others (CWP No. 24145 of 2024) vide order dated 04.12.2024 wherein the petitioners are retired employees of Union of India, in terms of Shila Devi's case (supra) with the only modification that wherever in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment in Shila Devi's case (supra) the reference is to the State of Punjab, the same be read as Union of India.
3. The applicants herein are the retired employees of BSNL under the umbrella of Union of India who voluntarily opted to commute a part of their pension as per the terms, as provided in Rule 10-A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. It was not binding or mandatory for them to opt for commutation of pension. The Commutation of Pension is a kind of offer to the retired employees to get the lump sum amount in lieu of maximum of 40% of pension as per the terms mentioned in Rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. It is totally the voluntary decision of the employees to accept or not the offer. But, once they accepted the offer and received the lump sum amount under specific terms, they BHANU PARTAP 2025.10.13 17:22:56+05'30' 5 cannot, at a later stage, raise a voice against those terms calling it arbitrary and illegal. Having accepted such an offer, a binding contract comes into existence between the employee and the employer as per which the original pension is to be restored after 15 years. Once the applicants have acquiesced to the policy and accepted the offer, their subsequent attempt to resile or seek change in its computation would not be permissible.
4. There is ad idem between the parties that the issue is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shila Devi's case (supra) and Surender Singh Jakhar's case (supra).
5. This Tribunal has heard learned counsel for both the sides, considered the matter and is of the view that the matter is covered by the order passed in O.A 743/2024 and connected matters. In order to maintain judicial prosperity and consistency, we are of the view that the same order is to be passed in this O.A also.
6. This O.A is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shila Devi's case (supra) and order in Surender Singh Jakhar's case (supra).
Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2025.10.13 17:22:56+05'30'