JUDGMENT

Vikash Jain, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner hereby undertakes that all the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner-

"K For issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the orders dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna herein after CAT in Original Application No. 050/00174 of 2017 as contained in Annexure-2 of the writ application whereby and whereunder the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 13.03.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 3 served on 10.03.2017 by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to the writ application, has been rejected/dismissed illegally without application of judicious mind, facts available on record and also by misinterpreting the order passed in the case of Jagdev Singh.

G. For issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Order dated 13.03.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 3 served upon the petitioner on 10.03.2017 by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the revised basic pension of Rs. 22,899/- fixed as on 01.01.2006 under 6th Pay Commission recommendation, subsequently been revised and fixed as Rs. 58,851/- as on 01.01.2016 under 7th Central Pay Commission Recommendation, has suddenly been reduced to Rs. 12,565/- with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006 after more than 10 years from the date of superannuation even without any show-cause notice although there is neither any misrepresentation on the part of Petitioner nor even any wrong while fixing his pension as Rs. 22899/- and Rs 58851/- as on 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016 respectively which the petitioner has received without any dispute, thus the impugned order dated 13.03.2016 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to the writ application is highly unconstitutional, against the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 issued by DOPT as contained in Annexure-A/3 to the Paper Book and also against the various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the Order dated 18.12.2014 passed in the case of State of Punjab V/s Rafique Masih vide C.A. No. 11527 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11684 of 2012.

H. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ orders)/ direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to refund the entire amount which has already been recovered on the basis of impugned order dated 13.03.2016 as contained in Annexure-A/1 to the writ application henceforth alongwith statutory interest.

I. That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner.

J. Any other appropriate relief(s) for which the Petitioner may be entitled to be granted. "

3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he superannuated from service on 31.12.2003 while serving as Executive Engineer (Electrical), Department of Telecom, Patna. After retirement, his basic pension was fixed at Rs. 6,755/- w.e.f. 1.1.2004 vide Pension Payment Order dated 11.5.2004. Thereafter, pursuant to the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation, the basic pension of the petitioner was calculated by the respondent Bank at Rs. 22,899/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Upon the 7th Central Pay Commission recommendation being implemented with effect from 1.1.2016, his basic pension was then calculated at Rs. 58,851/- by the Bank. The petiti