Synopsis

Two retired defence officers (a Colonel and a Wing Commander) were selected by Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., a Central Public Sector Enterprise, through open recruitment. Their pay was fixed at the minimum of the applicable pay scales, without any pay protection or benefit of past military service. Years later, EPIL sought to deduct their defence pension from their salary, citing a Department of Public Enterprises Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2012, and threatened to withhold salaries for non-furnishing of pension documents. The Delhi High Court held that the DPE OM, which provides for “pay minus pension” for re-employed pensioners, applies only where pay is fixed with reference to past service or pay protection is granted. Where an employee is appointed afresh at the minimum of the scale without any protection of previous emoluments, deducting pension reduces effective salary to a nominal amount (in one case ₹410 per month for a Deputy General Manager), which is absurd and not mandated by the policy. The court also held that belated recovery after years of service, without fraud or misrepresentation by the employee, is arbitrary and impermissible.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 8th May 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:4198 (as appears in judgment)

Core Law: Service Law / Constitutional Law – Article 226; Pay fixation of re-employed defence pensioners in Central Public Sector Enterprises; Recovery of alleged excess payments.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Writ petition (civil) no. 7625/2019 & connected matters

Col jamshaid akhtar (retd.) (petitioner) vs. General manager (hr) engineering projects (india) ltd. and ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sanjeev narula

Date of decision: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction for enforcement of service rights)

• Department of public enterprises office memorandum dated 14.12.2012 – paragraphs 3, 6, 9 (pay fixation for re-employed government pensioners in cpse’s)

• Department of public enterprises clarification dated 28.03.2019

• Department of personnel & training office memoranda on re-employed pensioners (1999, 2010, 2017)

• Payment of gratuity act, 1972 – principles of withholding of gratuity

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a central public sector enterprise can, years after appointment through open selection at the minimum of the pay scale without pay protection, deduct the defence pension of a retired officer from his salary, relying on a dpe office memorandum that was not incorporated into the appointment terms, and whether such retrospective refixation and recovery is legally permissible.

Key legal principles applied:

• Pension is a vested right, not a bounty: Following d.s. nakara v. union of india, pension earned for past service is property and cannot be unilaterally adjusted unless clearly authorized by law and applied fairly.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.