While upholding regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, the Supreme Court has observed that a Government servant or an employee who accepts the post cannot afterwards be permitted to resile from or to agitate in respect of the service conditions and the service regulations attached to the post which he accepted.

The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed by the State against the judgment upholding Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations.

The Division Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held, “One who participates in a game, cannot later challenge the rules of the game. It is well-settled by several judgments of this Court that a candidate, who participates in the selection process or a student who undergoes the examination is not entitled to subsequently question the norms and rules regarding conduct of the process of recruitment or the examination. Similarly, a Government servant or an employee, who accepts the post cannot afterwards be permitted to resile from or to agitate in respect of the service conditions and the service regulations attached to the post which he accepted.”

AOR Abhishek Atrey represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Harshvir Pratap Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent – original petitioner Lieutenant General (Retired) M.C. Bhandari, retired from the post of Lieutenant General in the Indian Army with effect from August 30, 2006, upon attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he came to be appointed by the appellant-State as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC. The order of pay fixation contained a note that the pension payable to him on account of his previous services as Lieutenant General would be deducted from the salary payable for the post of Chairman. The Finance Controller, Uttarakhand PSC accordingly fixed the salary of the said original petitioner as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC after deducting Rs.17,627, the amount of pension drawn by him.

The aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation asking for redetermination of his remuneration as Chairman of the Uttarakhand PSC. The representation came to be turned down by the appellant State. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations. In the other case, the original petitioner Sohan Lal was a Provincial Civil Service Officer and retired from the post of Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, with effect from July 20, 2006 by accepting voluntary retirement. Thereupon, the Government of Uttarakhand issued a letter of appointment on the very day, appointing him as a Member of the Uttarakhand PSC.

The petitioners were conveyed that salary payable to them was correctly fixed after deducting the amount of pension from the basic pay payable to them as Chairman or Member, as the case may be, and that the Governor had determined the same as per Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations. The High Court, while allowing the writ petitions of both the original petitioners, held that Regulation 7(2) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations was ultra vires Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution and granted relief as prayed for by them. In pursuance, the State of Uttarakhand approached the Apex Court by way of civil appeals by special leave.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Article 318 of the Constitution empowers the Governor of the State to frame regulations and it provides that in the case of a Union Commission or a Joint Commission, the President and, in the case of a State Commission, the Governor of the State may by regulations determine the number of members of the Commission and the conditions of their service. The Bench further noted that, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 318 of the Constitution, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission framed the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Regulations, which were notified on December 16, 2004.

The Bench held that while the deduction of pension by way of keeping it in abeyance does not amount to variation in the conditions of service under the Proviso to Article 318 of the Constitution, as rightly held by the High Court but the deduction of the part of pension, which was receivable by the original petitioners for their previously held posts as Government servants, would remain effective only during the tenure of the Chairman or, as the case may be, of the Member of the Uttarakhand PSC. It was noticed that the pension benefit to the said extent was kept in abeyance and was deferred to be paid after they leave their office as Chairman or Member, as the case may be.

“The decision of the Governor determining that the pension would be liable to be deducted to be kept in abeyance is taken in consonance with the said sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 7. There is nothing to suggest that such decision of the Governor should be taken simultaneously upon appointment of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Member, or that it should be before appointment. It is never the suggestion in the Regulation that pay minus pension could not be fixed pending the decision of the Governor”, it added.

The Bench took note of the fact that the appointment of the original petitioners was made in the year 2006. They enjoyed the benefits of the post and consumed the tenure for a period of more than two years. “They raised challenge to the applicability of Regulation 7(2) only thereafter which was at the fag end of the tenure. The principle of acquiescence would operate so as not to permit the original petitioners to raise the challenge”, it added.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned decision.

Cause Title: State of Uttarakhand v. M.C. Bhandari and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1194)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Abhishek Atrey, Advocates Ishita Bist, Rachna Gandhi, Ambika Atrey, Navneet Gupt

Respondent: Senior Advocate Harshvir Pratap Sharma, AOR Vandana Sharma Bhandari, Advocate Rohan Thawani, AOR Karunakar Mahalik, Advocates Sarbendra Kumar, Manoranjan Mishra, Kumudini Priyadarshini, Pradeep Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice SVN BhattiJustice NV Anjaria

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.