K. Venkataswami, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. At the time of argument learned counsel appearing in these writ petitions confined their relief to the restoration of one-third portion of the fully commuted pension as per the decision of this Court in Common Cause, Registered Society v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCR 497, and consequently to quash para 4 of O. M. 3412/86. P and PW issued by Government of India Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare dated 5-3-1987.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are as follows:- The members of the petitioner's welfare association in W. P. (C) No. 11855/85 and the individual petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 567/95 were Central Govt. Servants. Government of India some years ago decided to start public undertakings/enterprises in the core sector of industries. To start with the Government of India, sent some of their officers to the public undertakings, on deputation. As it was felt that services of the officers having sufficient experience and skill were necessary for the public enterprises, the Government devised measures to induct those willing officers to continue in the public enterprises. Such officers were allowed to be absorbed in those public undertakings/enterprises. The Government offered to deem their retirement as retirement in 'public interest.' Consequent to their deemed retirement, such absorbed/retired Government servants were offered retiral benefits. These persons were also offered the usual facility of commuting one third of their original pension under Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules and were also offered additional facility of commuting the balance twothirds pension also i. e. to commute the full pension. This facility therefore creates three categories of these persons (1) the persons who have not commuted their pension and therefore draw full monthly pension from the Government; (2) the persons who have commuted one third of the pension and therefore will draw a sliced monthly pension, reduced to the extent of commuted amount, (3) the persons who have commuted the full pension and who will not be given any monthly pension by deeming monthly pension to have been reduced to nil. The persons falling in the first category continue to derive all the benefits of being Government Pensioner and get all the Interim Relief, liberalisation and/or whatever reliefs are given by the Government to the petitioners. But the persons in the second category are denied these benefits to the extent of "one-third commutation". The third category are the worst hit and are totally denied of all these benefits.
(3.) The above-mentioned second category of the retired Government servants namely, those who got one third pension commuted moved this Court for restoration of their one-third pension by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, (Vide "Common Cause" v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCR 491). The contention put forward in support of their claim for restoration of the one-third pension was that the lump sum amount paid gets adjusted by about 10 or 12 years and therefore, the Government must be directed to restore the commuted portion of one-third pension. It was also contended that lately there has been a substantial improvement in the life expectancy of the people of India and therefore, there was no justification for denying the restoration of the commuted one-third portion of pension which gets adjusted after a period of 10 or 12 years. When that matter came up before this Court, a suggestion was made to the Government to give a new look to the matter. The respondent Government accepting that suggestion came forward with a new formula and after perusing the same this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCR 497 held as follows:- "As the postion now stands, when a pensioner commutes any part of his pension upto the authorised limit, his pension is reduced for the remaining part of his life by deducting the commuted portion from the monthly pension. The petitioner have contended that the commuted portion out of the pension is ordinarily recovered within about 12 years and, therefore there is no justification for fixing the period at 15 years. Commutation brings about certain advantages. The commuting pensioner gets a lump sum amount which ordinarily he would have received in course of a spread over period subject to his continuing to live. Thus two advantages are certainly forthcomming out of commutation - (i) availability of a lump sum amount and (2) the risk factor. Again many of the State Governments have already formulated schemes accepting the 15 years rule. In this background, we do not think we would be justified in disturbing the 15 years formula so far as civilian pensioners are concerned. The age of superannuation used to be 55 until it was raised to 58. It is not necessary to refer to the age of the commuting pensioner when the benefit would be restored. It is sufficient to indicate that on the expiry of fifteen years from the period of retirement such restoration would take place. The respondent-Government has agreed that this benefit should be extended with effect from 1-4-86. The writ applications were filed in 1983. The matter was placed on board for hearing in February, 1984. The Union Government took some time for responding to the suggestion of the Court and that is how the disposal was initially delayed. Thereafter, the hearing of the matter has again been delayed on account of pressing business in the Court. In these circumstances, we think it just and equitable that the benefit agreed to be extended in respect of the commuted portion of the pension should be effective from 1-4-85 so far as the Civilian employees are concerned." ;