A landmark judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court of India on May 23, 2025, in the case of M.T. Mani and Others v. Reserve Bank of India (Civil Appeal No. 13962 of 2024). This judgment addressed fundamental issues concerning public employment benefits, pension policy, administrative discretion, and the sanctity of contractual schemes.
In this particular issue, the question at hand was whether or not a retired worker who had previously chosen not to participate in the pension plan but later took a last option under a new policy was eligible to receive pension arrears beginning on the day of retirement, despite the fact that the pension plan only provided pensions prospectively. The scope of judicial review in situations involving policy-based administrative decisions and financial planning of public institutions was made more clear as a result of this ruling.
Historical Context and Facts
The respondent, M.T. Mani, was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) who began his public service in 1981. He chose to participate in the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme rather than the RBI Pension Scheme, which was implemented in 1990.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Over the course of his career, he was presented with numerous opportunities to transfer to the pension system, including in the years 1990, 1992, 1995, and 2000. His refusal each time resulted in his continuing to be covered by the CPF until he retired in 2014, at which point he was entitled to all gratuity and CPF payments.
In the year 2020, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) published Administration Circular No. 1 on September 14, 2020. This circular allowed eligible workers who had been in service between November 1, 1990 and November 15, 2000 to make a final move from the Contribution to Pension Fund (CPF) to the Pension Scheme.
It was made clear that arrears for the time period prior to July 1, 2020 were not included in the system, which mandated the refund of CPF payments along with interest and authorized pensions beginning on that day.
M.T. Mani voluntarily enrolled, proved that he met all of the conditions, and started getting his pension on July 1, 2020. On the other hand, he modified his pending writ petition at the Kerala High Court in order to contest the section that denied arrears from his retirement date of November 30, 2014, saying that it was arbitrary and discriminatory.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )
A decision from the High Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court
The writ petition was denied by the Single Judge of the High Court, who made the observation that the respondent had freely accepted the provisions of the 2020 project and could not reject any aspect of it selectively.
The Division Bench, on the other hand, overturned this decision and ruled that the decision to withhold arrears was discriminatory. This was due to the fact that earlier retirees who had received arrears from the date of their retirement were eligible for arrears. It was ordered that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) pay arrears beginning in 2014 at a 6% interest rate.
As part of their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) argued that the plan was a policy choice that was based on financial considerations and administrative necessity, and that arrears were expressly excluded in order to maintain the scheme’s viability.
The Supreme Court’s Decisions Regarding Legal Matters
Consideration was given to two key problems by the Supreme Court:
the question of whether or not the decision to set the cut-off date for the grant of pensions under the 2020 system at the first of July 2020 was arbitrary or discriminatory.
whether or not a beneficiary who freely joined a program might later contest specific aspects of the system, particularly the exclusion of pension arrears, is a question that has to be answered.
The Reserve Bank of India’s Position Regarding the Cut-off Date and Financial Viability
In its argument, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said that policy decisions that have ramifications for finances should be recognized unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions. When taking into consideration the fact that the Government of India had previously rejected the pension switch-over program owing to financial restrictions, the 2020 proposal was the outcome of substantial planning.
The expected financial impact of retroactive pension payments topped ₹900 crore, rendering them economically untenable through the use of backdated pension payments. The plan charged only three percent interest on CPF refunds, which was far lower than the options that were available in the past. This was a calculated trade-off given the potential benefits.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) further contended that the scheme was presented to the respondent as a comprehensive package, and that because the respondent had accepted the program in its entirety, they were unable to question any of its components in the future.
Due to this principle, which is often referred to as “approbate and reprobate,” it is impossible for a party to accept the advantages of a contract while simultaneously rejecting its obligations.
The Arguments of the Respondents Regarding Discrimination
The respondent argued that previous schemes had allowed for pension arrears to be paid beginning on the date of retirement, and that it was therefore arbitrary and unfair to deny him the same opportunities.
He maintained that the 1990 Pension Regulations did not contain any clause that expressly denied arrears, and that once he refunded the CPF amount along with interest, he was eligible for full pension entitlements beginning on the date he retired. In addition to this, he contested the reason that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) provided for the financial burden, stating that the scheme had previously been sanctioned by the Ministry of Finance.
Interpretation and Conclusions of the Supreme Court
During the delivery of the verdict, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih maintained the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) 2020 pension program and overturned the decision made by the Division Bench of the High Court.
It was highlighted by the Court that every administrative circular that was issued over the course of the years was unique, with its own terms, eligibility criteria, and financial computations. As was the case with its predecessors, the 2020 circular was a self-contained system that was based on the policy concerns that were prevalent at the time.
Regarding the well-established notion that the government and its agencies have the authority to establish cut-off dates in policy matters on the basis of administrative and budgetary considerations, the Court reaffirmed this principle.
Courts should not intervene in the matter of a cut-off date unless it can be demonstrated that the date is obviously arbitrary or capricious. Due to the fact that the respondent had deliberately accepted these terms, they were obligated to abide by them. The absence of arrears throughout the 2020 plan was a deliberate decision that was made in order to make the offer financially feasible.
In its decision, the Supreme Court referred to previous cases, such as State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, Mohammad Ali Imam v. State of Bihar, and State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, which all upheld the validity of policy-based cut-off dates in pension or pay matters when they were based on financial and administrative constraints.
Principles of the Law That Are Employed
The Court relied on a variety of legal ideas and laws, including the following:
In terms of policy, the courts should exercise restraint and refrain from interfering with executive choices on topics pertaining to finances and administration, unless those decisions are either unconstitutional or criminal.
A person cannot accept a government scheme and then subsequently contest unfavorable aspects of it because of the legal principle known as contractual estoppel.
A categorization that is fair is one in which retirees are treated differently based on cut-off dates, provided that this treatment is justified by either financial or administrative rationale.
The decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.T. Mani v. Reserve Bank of India is a landmark finding on the boundaries of judicial interference in administrative policies, particularly that which pertains to concerns concerning pensions and financial liabilities.
The Court struck a compromise between the rights of employees and the need to be fiscally responsible. It also recognized the Reserve Bank of India’s jurisdiction to establish its pension scheme and reaffirmed the notion that policy-based choices be respected unless they violate the law or equity.
Although public authorities are permitted to provide amended benefit schemes, they are not required to make them retroactively applicable if there is a worry over the financial sustainability of the plan.
This judgment assures that this is the case. In addition, it makes it quite plain that those who have benefited from such schemes are unable to later contest the provisions of the scheme after they have acquired the benefits.
Author
About the Author
