Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner, an octogenarian, is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for certain pensionary benefits by the Director General, Border Roads, New Delhi, the second respondent, under letter dated 22.05.2009 (wrongly mentioned as 22.05.2008).

2. There is no dispute as to the petitioners entitlement to pensionary benefits from 04.04.1979. He has been agitating his grievance in connection therewith since 1985 and this is the third round of litigation before this Court. Ergo, a lengthy and tortuous history precedes the case. Shorn of needless detail, the facts to the extent relevant may be summed up thus:

3. The petitioner entered the service of the Central Water and Power Commission, Government of India, in December, 1956. He was thereafter appointed to the General Reserve Engineer Force, Border Roads Development Board, in May 1963. In March, 1974, he was promoted as a Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical). He was deputed to work in M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, a public sector undertaking, in April, 1975 and continued as such till April, 1979. He was permanently absorbed in M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited with effect from 04.04.1979. The permanent absorption order was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport, Boarder Roads Development Board, New Delhi, under proceedings dated 28.02.1985. These proceedings record that the petitioners permanent absorption would have effect from 04.04.1979 but no arrears on account of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity would be paid to him from 04.04.1979 till 28.02.1985. It was further stated therein that the petitioner would be eligible for pro-rata pension and gratuity based on the length of his qualifying service under the Government of India till the date of his permanent absorption, as admissible under the rules. Admittedly, his qualifying service was from his initial appointment in December, 1956, till his absorption in M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited in April, 1979. Clauses (v) and (vi) of the proceedings dated 28.02.1985 are germane and read thus:

"(v) Option:

The officer will exercise an option, within six months of the date of issue of this letter, for either of the alternatives indicated below:--

a) Receiving the pro-rata monthly pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as admissible under clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) above under the Government of India Rules.

OR

b) Receiving the pro-rata gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to the Commutation Tables obtaining on the date from which the commuted value becomes payable.

(vi) Commutation:

In case Shri K. Subrahmanyam opts to receive pension as in para (v)(a) above but wishes to commute a portion of his pension, such commutation will be regulated in accordance with the Government of India Rules in force at the time of his permanent absorption in Singareni Collieries Limited."

4. According to the respondents, the petitioner furnished Option Certificate dated 24.03.1985 opting to receive pro-rata gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension. The petitioner would however contest this claim. According to him, the sequence of events demonstrates that he had not opted for 100% commutation and, in fact, he could not have done so under the prevailing legal regime.

5. In the first instance, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 16779 of 1997 aggrieved by the denial of pensionary benefits from 04.04.1979 to 28.02.1985. Therein, he sought a direction to the respondents to restore his pension from the date of his retirement from Government service and to regulate the same in accordance with the orders extant. It appears that prior to filing this case, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal however refused to entertain his case on the ground of delay. He thereupon filed the writ petition. Initially, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated