K.G.Shankar, J.

The Union of India represented by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions laid the present writ petition impugning the order dated 05.02.2010, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in a~A.No.242 of 2009, wherein the Tribunal held that the applicant in the O.A. was entitled to receive dearness relief, interim relief and the like on full basic pension from 01.01.1988 since he retired from the service of HCL on 31.12.1987 on attaining superannuation and that the entitlement to receive the relief is even during the period of commutation period of 15 years.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are:

The applicant joined in the postal department in 1948. He was permitted to retire from service in 1982 facilitating him for absorption in Hindustan Cables Limited (HCL), which is a Government of India undertaking.

The applicant was absorbed in HCL with effect from 01.01.1983. He commuted his 100% basic pension with effect from 01.01.1983 and received all the terminal benefits. He retired from service from HCL on 31.12.1987 on attaining superannuation.

Subsequently, the applicant claimed that he was entitled to dearness relief on full pension with effect from 01.01.1988 in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V.Sundara Rajan v. Union of India (1) (2000) 4 SCC 469. Since the dearness relief on full pension to which he was entitled to with effect from 01.01.1988 till 30.09.1998 was not paid to a tune of Rs. 1,02,852/-, the applicant claimed the same through a representation to the second respondent in the O.A., but the same was rejected by respondent Nos.1 and 2 through letters dated 22.10.2008 and 18.11.2008. The applicant/pensioner assailed the two orders in a.A.No.242 of 2009 before the Tribunal. Through the impugned order dated 05.02.2010, the Tribunal held that the pensioner would be entitled to the benefits of dearness relief, interim relief and the like. However, the Tribunal directed the pensioner to make a representation to the second respondent together with a calculation of the amount due to him.

3. Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General, representing the writ petitioners, contended that the pensioner is not entitled to pension or dearness allowance and other allowances on the pension during the period of commutation of 100% pension by him. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. V.S.Balakrishnan (2) (1994) Suppl.3 SCC 204 and contended that the Supreme Court observed that those who commuted 100% pension would not be entitled to the benefit of dearness relief on full pension or other benefits.

4. Sri P.V.Sundara Rajan, learned counsel representing Sri v. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent-pensioner, on the other hand, contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.V. Sundara Rajan's case (cited 1 supra) and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. R. Rama Murthy (3) 2004 (3) ALT 178 = (2004) 4 ALD 66, the pensioner is entitled to all the benefits towards dearness relief on the original full pension.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the pensioner and held that the pensioner was entitled to all the benefits on the pension. Reliance was placed upon Rules 37 and 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules').

Rules 37 and 37-A of the Rules read:

37. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body:

(1) a Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed to a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or in or under a Body controlled or financed by the Central Government or a State Government, shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and subject to sub-rule (3) he shall be eligible to re