Pension regulations cannot be changed by executive proceeding alone; unamended service and computation changes were invalid, commutation reduction stood.

Pensionary conditions already governed by the 1960 Regulations could not be altered through Board proceedings or a saving clause alone; any adverse change required a formal amendment in accordance with law. The Board's increase in qualifying service and the shift in pension computation to the average emoluments of the last ten months were therefore invalid and set aside because they were made by executive action without amending the Regulations. By contrast, the reduction of maximum commutation from 40% to 33 1/3% was upheld because the earlier enhancement had itself been granted only by Board proceeding, and a later executive proceeding could restore the position originally reflected in the Regulations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pensionary benefits already governed by the 1960 Regulations could be altered by Board proceedings and a saving clause without amending the Regulations; (ii) whether the enhancement of qualifying service and the linking of pension to the average emoluments of the last ten months could be sustained without formal amendment of the Regulations; (iii) whether the reduction in the maximum permissible commutation of pension from 40% to 33 1/3% could be upheld on the basis of a Board proceeding without amendment of the Regulations.

Issue (i): Whether pensionary benefits already governed by the 1960 Regulations could be altered by Board proceedings and a saving clause without amending the Regulations.

Analysis: The saving clause in Regulation 9 was intended to preserve existing benefits and to supplement the Board Regulations with the government pension rules only in matters not specifically governed by the Board's Regulations. It did not authorise the wholesale import of later government pension rules into the Board regime merely through a Board proceeding. Where pensionary conditions were already covered by the Regulations, any adverse change had to be brought about by a formal amendment made in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Board could not change the pension conditions already governed by the 1960 Regulations without amending those Regulations.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhancement of qualifying service and the linking of pension to the average emoluments of the last ten months could be sustained without formal amendment of the Regulations.

Analysis: The qualifying service for full pension and the basis for computation of pension were matters governed by the 1960 Regulations. Board Proceeding B.P.(Ch) No. 64 sought to alter both to the detriment of employees, but this was done only by executive action and not by amendment of the Regulations. Since the Board had not followed the prescribed procedure for changing the Regulations, the modification could not stand.

Conclusion: The increase in qualifying service and the change in the pension formula were invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the reduction in the maximum permissible commutation of pension from 40% to 33 1/3% could be upheld on the basis of a Board proceeding without amendment of the Regulations.

Analysis: The earlier increase in commutation to 40% had been brought about only by a Board proceeding, while the original Regulation permitted commutation at one-third. The later Board proceeding restoring commutation to 33 1/3% brought the position back to what the Regulations originally provided. A benefit granted by executive order without amendment could be altered by another executive order, and the challenge on the ground of absence of amendment therefore failed.

Conclusion: The reduction in commutation to 33 1/3% was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: the Board's changes to qualifying service and pension computation were struck down for want of amendment, while the commutation reduction was sustained, and the broader constitutional questions were left unanswered.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body cannot alter pensionary conditions already governed by its regulations through executive action or a saving clause alone, but a benefit earlier granted only by executive order may be modified by a subsequent executive order if the original regulations so permit or remain unchanged.

---