A retiree who commutes 100% pension is not entitled to restoration of the complete pension after the completion of 15 years, and the arrears of pension may not be granted for the period when the retiree was not a pensioner.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"(a) be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to release petitioner's due balance of entire due pensions, admitted as per letter dt 29.11.2017 (annexure P-4) couple with 24% interest quarterly deposits upon it as deemed fit and proper within time bound period in the interest of justice.

(b) be pleased to provide suitable compensation to the petitioner due to mental agony, harassment and frustration created by the action of the respondents to provide complete justice to the Petitioner.

(c)Pass any other suitable order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to meet the ends of justice."

2. At the outset, I may state, that this writ petition was disposed of by this Court on the first date of hearing itself, i.e., May 24, 2019 when this Court directed the respondent No.1 to release the amount as admitted in the letter dated November 29, 2017 with interest @ 9% per annum. Pursuant thereto, the respondents had filed a review petition being 422/2019 seeking review of the order dated May 24, 2019 which was allowed by this Court on January 15, 2020 whereby this Court had restored the writ petition.

3. Suffice would it be to state, the petitioner herein had challenged the order of this court in the review petition dated January 15, 2020 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its order dated February 20, 2021 has not interfered with the order but had, in view of the fact, the petitioner is of 82 years of age, requested this Court to take the writ petition for final disposal as early as possible and preferably within three months.

4. Accordingly, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on March 17, 2021 and proceed to decide the writ petition in terms of this order. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent No.1 Department of Telecommunication ('DOT', for short) under the Ministry of Communication, is the main employer with whom the petitioner was employed, having been appointed in the year 1965. In 1987 while working in DOT, the petitioner went on deputation to Telecommunications Consultants India Limited ('TCIL', for short) which is a Public Sector Undertaking. In 1993 he was absorbed in TCIL.

5. On August 31, 1994, DOT issued a letter declaring that the petitioner has been absorbed on a permanent basis in TCIL w.e.f. September 01, 1993. Later in the year 1995, the petitioner commuted his entire pension payable for his service in DOT. The gravamen of his case is that in 1996 when the 5th pay commission, followed by the 6th pay commission in 2006 recommendations were announced and implemented in favour of all government employees including pensioners; the petitioner was not given the benefit of the same, for the period between 1996-2010 insofar as the difference of pension.

6. Mr. M.L. Sharma learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner has argued that there was no denial by the respondents that the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits for the said period. He argued that despite several personal visits by the petitioner to the concerned departments his dues were not released, despite being given assurances.

7. Mr. Sharma submitted that on January 12, 2010 the pension of the petitioner was restored back to 1 /3 rd after 15 years from the date of commutation of his pension.

8. The petitioner had filed WP (C) No. 31/2012 before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of on May 01, 2017 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K Ganesan (Dead) By Lr. CA No. 6048/2010, decided on September 01, 2016, with a direction that 2 /3 rd of the pension of the petitioner be restored. On June 23, 2017 respondent No.2 issued a memo wherein it was decided that in terms of the judgment, the pension of the former employees has to be restored to the original amount, after 15 years.

9. Mr. Sharma