2025 (6) TMI 676 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of pension with effect from the date of retirement - Entitlement of a retired employee to pension benefits under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Pension Regulations 1990 - refund of the CPF amount with accrued interest as received from RBI on retirement and simple interest as may be decided by the RBI - principle of approbation and reprobation - violation of the Constitutional Statutory or Common Law principles - HELD THAT - The details and factum with regard to the various four options which were available to the Respondent during the period he was in employment with the RBI and that he did not opt for switching over to the Pension Scheme in the year 1990 1992 1995 and 2000 is not questioned rather admitted. Respondent joined the service on 14.09.1981 and retired as Manager on 30.11.2014. The details with regard to and the requirements under each administrative circular issued on these four occasions have not been disputed. Similarly the rate of interest applicable on the amount to be refunded also varied depending upon the targeted beneficiaries of the Scheme. What is apparent therefore is that on each occasion there was a specific timeframe fixed for giving an option and the benefit was similarly limiting it to the beneficiaries. Fortunately for the Respondent he was eligible on four occasions to avail the benefits of the Pension Scheme but he opted out each time and continued with the CPF Scheme. Having taken a considered and calculated decision with regard to non-joining of the Pension Scheme and continuing with the CPF Scheme the claim of the Respondent has to be considered in the said light. Another aspect which is apparent is that there has been a gap of 20 years as the option which was given prior to the last one was in the year 2000 and the one which is in question before us is of the year 2020. During this period on three separate occasions as mentioned earlier the Government did not agree with the proposal of the RBI to grant another option for switching over to the Pension Scheme. It is apparent from the documents placed on the record that the financial details regarding the liability and the calculations based thereon as part of the proposal for a one-time last option to move to the Pension Scheme were put forth before the Government. As is evident from the said proposal no liability with regard to arrears of pension was highlighted therein. This is logical as well as it was specifically provided that the pension would be payable with effect from 01.07.2000 and there would be no entitlement of arrears from the date of retirement or otherwise. The financial burden and the liability were therefore prominent aspects taken into consideration by the Government while granting its no objection to the proposed Scheme for switching to the Pension Scheme to the erstwhile CPF Scheme optee employees. As per the pleadings the retrospective financial burden would have resulted in an unjustified liability of over 900 crores for the RBI which would have led to a financially unsustainable scenario. This aspect has also been pressed into service by the Counsel. The decision of the Government falls within the realm of policy decision keeping in view of the considerations taken note of before ultimately approving the Scheme of switch-over as a last option to the persons who were eligible under it as laid down therein. In State of Tripura 2022 (8) TMI 1577 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court in reaffirming its earlier rulings such as in Amar Nath Goyal 2005 (8) TMI 717 - SUPREME COURT and T.N Electricity Board vs. R. Veerasamy and Others 1999 (3) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT held that financial constraints can constitute a valid and non-arbitrary basis for fixing a cut-off date for extending pensionary benefits or pay revisions. It emphasized that economic considerations are germane to governmental policy decisions and distinguishing between retirees based on such a date does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly in the present case the cutoff date fixed under the Pension Rules was constitutionally valid and the High Court s judgment striking it down was found to be erroneous. Therefore it cannot be said that the cut off date as fixed for grant of pension while refusing its retrospectivity thereof would be arbitrary or illegal or discriminatory in nature. Moreover based on the facts of the case the Respondent cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath as stated above. Each Circular had its own specific terms and conditions entitling the retirees or in-service employees to the benefits as were laid down therein and that too subject to certain conditions. The said scheme itself was a well-considered and thoroughly worked-out detailed financial liability aspect. The said Scheme therefore to be operational and effective and above all a viable one was to operate as a whole. The present Scheme of the year 2020 was a conglomerate of various factors with each factor working in tandem with the others making it an effective and workable Scheme which when tested on the principles laid down by this Court as referred to above would not fall foul of it. The financial aspect in itself is a valid consideration as stated above and would be applicable in the present case. The Respondent therefore cannot be permitted to choose a particular aspect of the Scheme that makes it unworkable and that too for his own financial benefit. Approbation and reprobation would not be permissible in such schemes. Respondent having once opted for the Scheme cannot be permitted to not accept a part thereof while intending to take the benefit of the Scheme as a whole. The plea therefore as has been sought to be projected amounts to violation of the contractual terms because the Scheme in itself had to be given effect to as a whole. There being no violation of the Constitutional Statutory or Common Law principles interference by the Division Bench vide the impugned judgment while setting aside the judgement of the Single Judge cannot sustain. Thus the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala therefore cannot sustain and is hereby set aside and the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2023 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the Respondent is restored. The appeal is allowed. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the entitlement of a retired employee to pension benefits under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Pension Regulations, 1990, particularly concerning the effective date of pension payment and the claim for arrears of pension from the date of retirement. The issues include:

1. Whether the fixation of the cut-off date of 01.07.2020 for the grant of pensionary benefits to employees opting for the Pension Scheme from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, and the non-payment of arrears prior to this date, is lawful or amounts to discrimination and arbitrariness.

2. Whether the retired employee who had multiple earlier opportunities to switch to the Pension Scheme but declined, and accepted CPF benefits on retirement, can now claim pension benefits retrospectively from the date of retirement after opting for the Pension Scheme under the 2020 Circular.

3. Whether the principle of approbation and reprobation applies to the employee's acceptance of the Pension Scheme terms and his selective challenge to unfavorable conditions therein.

4. The extent to which financial and administrative considerations justify the cut-off date and the denial of retrospective pension arrears.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Legality and Validity of the Cut-off Date (01.07.2020) for Grant of Pension Benefits

The legal framework involves the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990, and subsequent administrative circulars issued by RBI, particularly the Administration Circular No. 1 dated 14.09.2020 and detailed instructions dated 18.09.2020. These circulars allowed a last option for employees and retirees to switch from CPF to the Pension Scheme, subject to refund of the RBI's CPF contribution with accrued interest plus simple interest at 3% per annum. Crucially, pension benefits were made payable prospectively from 01.07.2020, with no arrears payable for the period prior.

Precedents cited include this Court's decisions in Mohammad Ali Imam and Others, State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, and others, which establish that fixation of cut-off dates by the executive for pension or pay benefits is a policy decision influenced by financial, economic, and administrative considerations. Such cut-off dates are not arbitrary or discriminatory unless shown to be capricious or whimsical. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with such policy decisions.

The Court noted that the Government of India had rejected earlier proposals by RBI in 2002, 2018, and 2019 to grant another option for CPF optees to switch to the Pension Scheme, primarily due to financial liability concerns. The 2020 Circular was issued after Government approval, explicitly providing for pension benefits from 01.07.2020 onwards, excluding arrears.

The Court held that the cut-off date was a well-informed policy decision balancing financial sustainability and administrative feasibility. It was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The financial burden of retrospective pension arrears was substantial (estimated over 900 crores), justifying the prospective-only pension payment.

Issue 2: Entitlement of the Retired Employee to Retrospective Pension Arrears

Respondent No. 1 joined RBI service in 1981 and had four prior opportunities (1990, 1992, 1995, 2000) to opt for the Pension Scheme but chose to retain CPF benefits. On retirement in 2014, he received CPF and gratuity dues. After the 2020 Circular, he opted for the Pension Scheme and started receiving pension from 01.07.2020.

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that since the Respondent had refunded the CPF contribution with interest as required, he was entitled to pension benefits from the date of retirement, including arrears, and that denial of arrears was discriminatory and arbitrary compared to earlier circulars where arrears were granted.

The RBI challenged this, arguing that each administrative circular constituted a separate scheme with distinct terms, including different cut-off dates and interest rates on refunds. The 2020 Circular was a complete package balancing liabilities and benefits, approved by the Government of India, and the Respondent, having accepted it, could not selectively claim retrospective arrears contrary to its terms.

The Court found that the Respondent's claim for arrears conflicted with his prior decisions and the terms of the 2020 Circular. It emphasized that the Respondent had accepted the scheme as a whole and could not now repudiate unfavorable terms while claiming benefits. The principle of approbation and reprobation was applicable, preventing selective acceptance and rejection of contractual terms.

Issue 3: Applicability of the Principle of Approbation and Reprobation

The Court considered whether the Respondent could accept the pension benefits under the 2020 Circular but challenge the non-payment of arrears, which was a clear and integral part of the scheme's terms. The Court held that such selective acceptance was impermissible. The Respondent had accepted the terms, filled the forms, and refunded the CPF amount with interest as required. Therefore, he could not now repudiate the condition of prospective pension payment only.

This principle was invoked to uphold the integrity of the scheme and prevent abuse of the contractual arrangement.

Issue 4: Financial and Administrative Considerations Justifying the Cut-off Date and Non-Payment of Arrears

The Court recognized that financial constraints and administrative exigencies are valid and relevant considerations for the executive in framing pension schemes and fixing cut-off dates. The Government of India's prior refusals to permit retrospective pension benefits reflected these concerns. The 2020 Circular's terms were a product of detailed financial calculations and policy decisions.

The Court observed that the 3% simple interest charged on refunded CPF contributions was a nominal rate intended to cover administrative costs and inflation, lower than earlier rates (6% or 12%) applicable in prior schemes. The prospective pension payment from 01.07.2020 was a conscious decision to limit financial exposure and ensure scheme viability.

The Court referred extensively to precedents affirming that such policy decisions, especially involving financial implications, warrant judicial deference and should not be interfered with unless arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusions on Issues

The Court concluded that:

- The fixation of 01.07.2020 as the cut-off date for pension payment under the 2020 Circular is lawful, rational, and not discriminatory or arbitrary.

- The Respondent, having declined earlier options and accepted the 2020 Scheme's terms, including refunding CPF contributions with interest, is not entitled to pension arrears from the date of retirement.

- The principle of approbation and reprobation bars the Respondent from selectively accepting benefits and rejecting conditions of the scheme.

- Financial and administrative considerations justify the scheme's terms and the non-payment of retrospective arrears.

- The Division Bench's judgment granting pension from the date of retirement and arrears is unsustainable and is set aside.

Significant Holdings

The Court held:

"Apart from this, there may be other considerations in the mind of the executive authority while fixing a particular date i.e. economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative and other circumstances, and if no reason is forthcoming from the executive for fixation of a particular date, it should not be interfered with by the Court unless the cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result."

"The choice of cut-off date cannot be held to be arbitrary (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical)."

"Financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis."

"The Respondent cannot be permitted to choose a particular aspect of the Scheme that makes it unworkable, and that too for his own financial benefit. Approbation and reprobation would not be permissible in such schemes."

"The Scheme in itself had to be given effect to as a whole."

"There being no violation of the Constitutional, Statutory or Common Law principles, interference by the Division Bench... cannot sustain."

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the Division Bench judgment was set aside, and the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition was restored.