This judgment does not fix any individual officer's pay for a future appointment, does not decide pension entitlement after a Commission tenure ends beyond the revival principle stated, and does not disturb the High Court's finding that keeping pension in abeyance is not a variation of service conditions to a member's disadvantage under the proviso to Article 318.
- Case
- State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary and Others v. M.C. Bhandari and Another
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1194
- Bench
- S.V.N. Bhatti; N.V. Anjaria
- Judgment by
- N.V. Anjaria
- Case numbers
- C.A. 1614/2011; C.A. 1615/2011
- Outcome
- State's civil appeals allowed; High Court judgments dated 15 April 2010 in Writ Petitions No. 182 (SB) and 181 (SB) of 2008 set aside; Regulation 7(2) upheld. Pending interlocutory applications cease to survive.
Appeals allowed, High Court judgments set aside
The Supreme Court has allowed the State of Uttarakhand's appeals and set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's judgments of 15 April 2010, which had declared Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2004 ultra vires. The two appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 1614 and 1615 of 2011, were decided by a common judgment of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, with Justice Anjaria authoring the judgment.
The practical result is that the pay-minus-pension arrangement stands: when a retired government servant is appointed Chairman or Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, the pension drawn for earlier service may be held in abeyance, or the prescribed pay reduced by an amount not exceeding that pension, during the Commission tenure. The Court stressed that this is a temporary withholding, not a withdrawal of pension.
Two retired officers, two identical challenges
The lead appeal concerned Lieutenant General (Retired) M.C. Bhandari, who retired from the Indian Army on 30 August 2006 and was appointed Chairman of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 3 November 2006, assuming office on 24 November 2006. His basic pay as Chairman was fixed at Rs. 26,000 per month, with his pension of Rs. 17,627 deducted from it. A representation seeking refixation without the deduction, made on 13 June 2007, was turned down on 30 June 2007.
The connected appeal concerned Sohan Lal, a Provincial Civil Service officer who retired as Additional Secretary on 20 July 2006 by voluntary retirement and was appointed a Member of the Commission the same day, taking charge on 22 July 2006. His basic pay was fixed at Rs. 22,500 per month, with his pension of Rs. 11,025 deducted. Both men challenged Regulation 7(2) before the High Court, which allowed their writ petitions, struck down the Regulation as violating Article 14 read with Article 39(d), set aside the State's office memorandum of 16 September 2008, and directed reimbursement of any deductions already made.
What Regulation 7 actually provides
Regulation 7(1) fixes the Chairman's salary at Rs. 26,000 per month and each Member's at Rs. 22,500 per month. Regulation 7(2) then provides that where the Chairman or a Member is a retired government servant at the time of appointment, the Governor shall determine whether the service pension shall be held in abeyance, wholly or in part, or whether the pay fixed by the Regulation shall be reduced by an amount not exceeding that pension, including any commuted portion, if the pension is allowed to be drawn in full.
The State's office memorandum of 16 September 2008 recorded the Governor's determination that the pension payable immediately before assuming Commission office, except disability or injury pension, would be deducted from the basic pay of the post. The Court noted that the same pay-minus-pension norm had been consistently applied to retired government servants appointed after superannuation to constitutional posts, and that the Union Public Service Commission (Members) Amendment Regulations, 2007 contain a similar provision.
Withholding during tenure, revival after it
The core of the Court's reasoning is temporal. The deduction operates only while the officer holds the Commission post; at the end of the tenure, the entitlement to the pension kept in abeyance revives. In the Court's words, there is no withdrawing of the pension, only withholding during the period the Commission post is held. That is why the arrangement does not amount to a variation of a member's conditions of service to his disadvantage after appointment, within the proviso to Article 318, a point on which the Court agreed with the High Court.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Governor's determination came too late to operate. The Regulations were already in force when both officers were appointed in 2006, their pay was fixed under Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) from the start, and the file notings showed the proposal moving from a Joint Secretary's letter of 29 May 2007 through the Finance Department to the Governor's approval reflected in the 2008 memorandum. The retrospectivity objection was therefore misconceived, and accepting the petitioners' case would have produced the absurd result of salary plus full pension exceeding the salary of the post itself.
Why equal pay for equal work did not apply
The High Court had reasoned that pension earned for Army or civil service was unrelatable to the duties of the Commission post, and that deducting it from the Rs. 26,000 salary therefore breached equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d). The Supreme Court held that the High Court wholly misdirected itself on this point: the doctrine has no pertinence here, because the pension is not pay for Commission work at all, but deferred reward for earlier service that is merely kept in abeyance while the officer draws Commission salary.
The Court drew support from its decision in Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi v. State of Haryana, where a similar embargo on drawing member's pension while serving as Chairman of the Haryana Public Service Commission was held to lift once the chairmanship ended, with pension then payable for the earlier service subject to the prescribed ceiling. The same structure, the Court held, governs Regulation 7(2).
Acceptance of the post, and a late challenge
A further, independent strand of the judgment is estoppel and acquiescence. Both officers accepted their posts with knowledge that the 2004 Regulations were in force and applicable, enjoyed the benefits of office for more than two years, and challenged Regulation 7(2) only towards the fag end of their tenures. Having accepted the appointment on those known conditions, the Court held, they could not afterwards dispute the Regulations or the pay fixation made under them.
The judgment closes with the settled proposition that one who participates in a process cannot later challenge its rules, applied here to a government servant who accepts a post and then agitates against the service conditions attached to it. On that footing too, the challenge failed.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: withholding is not withdrawal
This judgment is a useful study in how a single distinction can decide a constitutional challenge. If pension were permanently taken away, the case would look like a cut in earned benefits; because it is only paused and then revives, the Court treats it as a condition of holding a second, salaried constitutional office rather than a penalty on the first career.
Notice also how three doctrines that often appear separately are made to converge: the text of Regulation 7(2) and Article 318, the precedent in Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi on embargo-and-revival, and the conduct doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence. A student answering a question on this case should keep the operative outcome distinct from the reasoning: the Regulation survives, the High Court judgments fall, and nothing in the judgment promises any officer salary plus full pension during a Commission tenure.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that deducting pension from PSC salary during tenure is a withholding rather than a withdrawal, and why does that distinction matter?
- Why did the equal-pay-for-equal-work principle not help the original petitioners on these facts?
- What role did acceptance of the post with knowledge of the Regulations, and the delay in challenging them, play in the Court's reasoning?
