Pay Minus Pension for PSC Chairman Is Valid: Supreme Court

Pay Minus Pension for Retired Officers Appointed to Uttarakhand PSC Is Valid: Supreme Court Upholds Regulation 7(2)

Published: 4 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court upheld Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2004, under which the Governor decides whether a retired government servant appointed Chairman or Member has his service pension held in abeyance or his salary reduced by it. Allowing the State's appeals, it set aside High Court judgments that had struck the provision down, holding that equal pay for equal work had no relevance (paras 7.3, 13-14).

Key holdings

Pay minus pension for a retired government servant appointed to a State Public Service Commission does not breach Article 14 read with Article 39(d) (para 7.3).

Holding the pension in abeyance during the tenure does not vary the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 318 (para 7.1).

The Governor's determination under Regulation 7(2) need not precede or coincide with the appointment (para 9.2).

An appointee who accepts a post knowing its service regulations is estopped from disputing them, and a challenge raised late in the tenure is barred by acquiescence (paras 11.1-12.1).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

M.C. Bhandari retired as a Lieutenant General on 30.08.2006 and was appointed Chairman of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission; his salary was fixed at a basic pay of Rs.26,000 after deducting his pension of Rs.17,627 (paras 3-3.1). The respondent in the connected appeal, a retired Additional Secretary of the State, became a Member at a basic pay of Rs.22,500, less his pension of Rs.11,025 (para 3.2). A representation was rejected, and an Office Memorandum of 16.09.2008 recorded the Governor's determination under Regulation 7(2) (paras 3.1.1, 3.3-3.3.1). On 15.04.2010 the High Court held Regulation 7(2) ultra vires Article 14 read with Article 39(d) and set the deduction aside (paras 2-2.3, 3.5).

Court's Findings

Regulation 7, framed under Article 318, fixes the Chairman's and Members' salaries and lets the Governor decide whether a retired government servant's pension is held in abeyance or the pay reduced by it (paras 5-5.1). Keeping the pension in abeyance does not vary the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 318, as the High Court rightly held (para 7.1). The pension is not withdrawn but withheld during the tenure, and the entitlement revives when it ends (paras 7.1-7.2). Equal pay for equal work had no relevance, and the High Court misdirected itself in holding the Regulation ultra vires Articles 14 and 39(d) (para 7.3). Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi v. State of Haryana, on similar facts, answered the issue (paras 8-8.1.4). The Regulations were in force when the respondents were appointed; nothing required the Governor to decide before or at the appointment, and the 2008 Office Memorandum at best operated retroactively, not retrospectively (paras 9.1-9.3). File notings showed the decision was duly taken (paras 10-10.1). Adding pension to salary would be absurd (para 9.4). Having accepted the posts knowing the Regulations, the respondents were estopped, and acquiescence barred a challenge raised at the end of their tenure (paras 11-12.1).

Legal Principle

A regulation made under Article 318 that lets the Governor hold a retired government servant's pension in abeyance, or reduce the salary of a Public Service Commission Chairman or Member by it, is valid: the pension is withheld, not withdrawn, and equal pay for equal work does not arise (paras 7.1-7.3).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For retired civil servants and officers who take up a post on a State Public Service Commission, the ruling confirms that the pension they already draw can lawfully be held back from the salary of the new office when the service regulations provide for it, and that this is not a breach of equal pay for equal work (paras 7.1-7.3). The pension is withheld for the tenure, not lost (para 7.2). Check the regulations before accepting the post: the Court held the appointees estopped from questioning rules in force when they joined, and treated a challenge brought after more than two years in office as barred by acquiescence (paras 11.1-12.1).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi vs. State of Haryana and Others (1998) 5 SCC 260
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 8
Under the Haryana Public Service Commission Regulations a Member who later holds office as Chairman gets no pension as a Member while he functions as Chairman; the embargo lifts when he ceases to be Chairman. Held to be an answer to the issue, the facts being akin, in upholding the withholding of pension during the tenure under Regulation 7(2).