HC rejects former PSC chief’s plea for additional pension

Raipur: 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 govt to alter policy decisions that carry financial implications.The petitioner, a retired IAS officer who served as principal secretary to the state govt, superannuated on 31 Jan, 2015 with an annual pension fixed at Rs 11,59,800. He later joined the Chhattisgarh PSC as a member on 7 March 2015 and was appointed its chairman on 12 June 2015. He retired from the commission on 16 Jan, 2017 upon reaching the age of 62.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 govt pension alone exceeded this ceiling, the state denied him additional pension benefits.Following the implementation of the 7th Pay Commission, the state government issued a notification on 5 December 2020, amending the rules to raise the combined pension ceiling to Rs 13,50,000 per annum. This amendment was made effective from 1 April 2018.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 1 January 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 13 August 2021, prompting the writ petition.Dismissing the plea, the division bench observed that the amended regulation applies only to those who retired on or after 1 April 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.