Important point
In the case of pensioners who got commuted their pension, full pension would be restored after fifteen years from the date of commutation and not after 15 years from the date of retirement.

Judgment

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. This appeal, an off-shoot of the judgment of this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India1, arises from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 12381 of 1996 dated January 22, 1998.

3. The appellant, who is a Senior Advocate and a member of the Madras High Court Bar, filed writ petition No. 12381 of 1996, a public inter­est litigation, in the High Court of Madras challenging Memorandum No. 34/2/86-P & PW(G) dated August 22, 1990 issued by Department of Pen­sion and Pensioner’s Welfare and also the letter dated September 26, 1990, applying the above said Memorandum to the Department of Justice, and seeking declaration that it does not apply to the Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

4. The substance of the appellant’s case before the High Court was that the Supreme Court had issued direction that payment of reduced pension on account of communication of a part of the pension of a Government employee should be only for a period of 15 years “from the date of retirement”, but the Union of India issued impugned Memorandum changing it to “from the date of commutation of pension”. The Union of India, in its counter-affidavit, stated that the Supreme Court clari­fied the direction given in Common Cause (supra) in its subsequent judgment that the period of 15 years be reckoned from the date of commutation and not from the date of retirement. Pursuant to the subsequent judgment of this Court, Government of India revised its earlier Memorandum No. 34/2/86-P & PW dated March 5, 1987 and brought into force the impugned Memorandum.

5. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, taking note of the various judgments of this Court, dismissed the writ petition by order dated January 22, 1998. It is against that judgment, this appeal is preferred.

6. Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned senior counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that once the Government of India accepted in principle that the commuted pension would be recovered for a period of 15 years from the date of retirement and the same had culminated into a direction of this Court, they could not have unilaterally changed the same to reckon the period of 15 years from the date of commutation of pension. The learned counsel has submitted that under the Pension Rules, a pensioner can commute a part of his pension only within one year of the date of retirement, therefore, the stand of the Government that those who applied for and got their pension commuted just on the verge of the comple­tion of 15 years would be able to claim their full pension after a few months of deduction was without any basis.

7. Mr. A.S. Nambiar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respond­ents, has argued that the period of 15 years is fixed on the basis that the commuted pension would normally be recovered within the said period; when the commutation of pension and the date of retirement synchronize, no difficulty would arise but if the pension is commuted long after the date of retirement, the period of 15 years will be cut short when counted from the date of retirement and in the result the pensioners will get an undue and unintended benefit of the order of the Supreme Court.

8. In the case of Common Cause (supra), it was represented before this Court in a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution that on commutation of pension the amount paid to the pensioner in lump sum by the Government would be recovered from his pension within a period of 12 years, there was, therefore, no justification for the Government to pay reduced pension for the rest of the life of the pensioner. This Court desired that the Government might give a new look to the appli­cation of Central Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. The Government took decision in the matter and communicated the same through the learned Attorney General, which is in the following terms :

“(i)