WP/33866/2024 of R.VAIDYANATHAN Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICR on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Mandamus, directing the respondents restraining from deducting the petitioner’s pension amount and consequently directing the respondents to refund the deducted amount excessively.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents had deducted the commutation amount from the petitioner’s pension for almost 14 years and that they have already deducted whatever the amount was commuted along with interest. Therefore, the question of further deduction would not arise. Hence, prayed to issue a Mandamus.

4. However, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Standing Counsel and he would rely upon Rule 10A of CCS (Commutation Pension) Rules, which is pari materia with Regulation 41 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. According to Rule 41, they are entitled to recover the contribution for a period of 15 years. Therefore, as long as the clause exists, the petitioner cannot seek for restoration of his original pension. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that, according to Pension Payment Order, there is a clear reference that as to when the pension would be restored. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that unless Regulation 41 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations or the Pension Payment Order is challenged, the question of seeking Mandamus does not arise. The learned Standing Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in All India Gref Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association Vs. Shyam Dev [Idas] (Cont.Case (C).No.2656 of 2024 dated 11.06.2026) reported in 2026:KER:42295, wherein when the similar prayer was sought for, the Kerala High Court has rejected the same.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Now the point to be considered in the present writ petition is, whether the petitioner seeks for a restoration of pension prior to completion of 15 years?. On perusal of Pension Payment Order, there is a clear reference that the pension would be recovered upto the period of 15 years. Admittedly, that order has not been challenged. According to Rule 41 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, there is a specific reference that they are entitled to deduct for a period of 15 years. In the case in hand, it is the submission of the petitioner that within 14 years, they have deducted the commuted amount along with interest. However, while looking into the Rules as well as the Pension Payment Order, there is a specific reference that they are entitled to deduct the amount for a period of 15 years. Though the petitioner would contend that the amount had been deducted, the very pension is not with reference to one of the employee, but it relates to various other employees. Therefore, as a general rule, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus merely on account of such deduction, unless he demonstrates that the deduction has affected his fundamental rights. It is also relevant to mention the judgment of the Kerala High Court in a similar circumstances, in All India Gref Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association Vs. Shyam Dev [Idas] (Cont.Case (C).No.2656 of 2024 dated 11.06.2026) reported in 2026:KER:42295, in paragraph 10, has observed as follows:- “10.Similar is the case in WP(C).No.40501 of 2024, but the challenge is against the provisions of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pensions Regulations, 1995. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the table prescribed in the said Rules, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, is pari materia with the table attached to the Rules in connection with the Union Bank of India. It is stated that similar issue was raised by the employees of the Union Bank, which came up before this Court for consideration in WP(C) No.39729 of 2024 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.R5(A) judgment and the appeal filed challenging the same as WA.No.1078 of 2025 was also dismissed upholding the recovery for a period of 15 years.”

7. In a pari materia rule, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shila Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2024 PHHC 157352-DB, the Division Bench has held as follows:- “3.Writ-petitioners in all the petitions are retired employees of the State of Punjab having served its various departments. All of them opted for commutation of their pension in terms of applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (for short ‘PCS, Rules), Volume-II’). Question raised for consideration and adjudication is as to whether portion of pension commuted by the pensioner should be restored after completion of 15 years from actual date of commutation as provided in Rule 11.1 (2) of PCS Rules, Volume-II or it should be restored after a lesser period i.e., about 12 years.”

8. In paragraph 3 of the above judgment, the issue had been dealt, which was answered in paragraphs 28 to 31. The same is extracted hereunder:- “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 the 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 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.”

In the above judgment, it has been categorically held that any prayer seeking for a reduction of recovery period in contravention to the Rule is not maintainable.

9. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court does not find any merits in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. The Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

2. The General Manager(PAD) Indian Overseas Bank, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 33866 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 36680 OF 2024 15-10-2026