Shri. S.L. Bhasme And Ors vs Union Of India Through Secretary, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4285 Bom

                                                                 11.wpst.5778.20.doc

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 5778 OF 2020


   S.L. Bhasme & Ors.                             ...     Petitioners
             Versus
   Union of India & Ors.                          ...     Respondents
                                        .........


   Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Saikumar Ramamurthy and Ms. Jayasree
   Pillai for the Petitioners.
   Ms. Neeta Masurkar for the Respondents.
                                   .........


                                     CORAM        :     K.K. TATED &
                                                        R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                     DATE         :     9th MARCH, 2021.

   P.C. :-

   1              Heard learned Counsel for the parties.


   2              By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

Petitioners are seeking direction against the Respondents to restore the

entire amount of pension to each of the Petitioners after the expiry of 15

years from the date of commutation and give the consequential benefits

under the Export Council Pension and General Provident Fund Rules

1981.

Waghmare                                     1   / 4
                                                               11.wpst.5778.20.doc

   3           The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that even the

Apex Court in the matter of Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs.

Union of India by order dated 09.12.1986 reported in AIR 1987 (SC) page

210 and the Madras High Court in the matter of K. Ganesan vs. The

Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai in Writ

Petition No.22207 of 2002 by order dated 02.08.2007 held that retired

persons are entitled to restoration of the pension after expiry of the

requisite period of commutation. He further submits that the Madras

High Court judgment was challenged by the Union of India and another

before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6048 of 2010. He submits that

the Apex Court held that they do not find any justification to interfere

with the said order. The said para of the order dated 01.09.2016 reads

thus :

" Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and having perused the record of the case, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order, directing restoration of 2/3rd pension in respect of the respondent herein, after the expiry of the requisite period of commutation.

The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed."

Waghmare                                  2   / 4
                                                                11.wpst.5778.20.doc




   4           The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that

thereafter Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances &

Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare by Office

Memorandum dated 23.06.2017 also directed the concerned department

to follow the same. Para 8 of the said Circular/Office Memorandum reads

thus :

"8. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has been decided to extend the benefit of order dated 02-08-2007 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Order dated 01-09-2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to all similarly placed absorbee pensioners. Accordingly, all such absorbee petitioners who had taken 100% lump-sum amount in lieu of pension on absorption in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies in accordance with the then exiting Rule 37-A and in whose case 1/3 pension had been restored after 15 years, may be allowed restoration of full pension after expiry of commutation period of 15 years from the date of payment of 100% lump-sum amount."

Waghmare                                   3   / 4
                                                                 11.wpst.5778.20.doc




   5            On the basis of these submissions, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners submits that the Respondents may be directed to give the

entire benefit to all the Petitioners.

6 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents

submits that she required some time to take instructions and file affidavit-

in-reply to that effect. On her request, the following order is passed :

i) Respondents to file their affidavit-in-reply on or before

09.04.2021 with copy to other side.

ii) Rejoinder if any, to be filed on or before 16.04.2021

with copy to other side.

iii) Matter to appear on board on 20.04.2021.

Digitally signed by Waishali S.

                                                                                      Waishali   Waghmare
                                                                                      S.         Date:
                                                                                      Waghmare   2021.03.17
                                                                                                 02:33:22
                                                                                                 +0530


       ( R.I. CHAGLA, J. )                      ( K.K. TATED, J. )




Waghmare                                    4   / 4