K.Venkataswami, J. - (1.) This Court in a judgment dated 15-12-1995 in Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 187 , inter alia, held as follows:-"From the above extracts, it will be seen that a clear-cut distinction is made in Rule 37-A itself between one-third portion of pension to be commuted without any condition attached and two-third portion of pension to be received as terminal benefits with condition attached with it. It follows that so far as commutation of one-third of the pension is concerned, the petitioners herein as well as petitioners in "Common Cause" stand on similar footing with no difference. So far as the balance of two-third pension is concerned, the petitioners herein have received the commuted value (terminal benefits) on condition of their surrendering of their right of drawing two-thirds of their pension. This was not the case with the petitioners in "Common Cause" case. That being the position the denial of benefit given to "Common Cause" petitioners to the present petitioners violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reasoning for restoring one-third commuted pension in the case of "Common Cause" petitioners equally applies to the restoration of one-third commuted pension in the case of these petitioners as well. ********** For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as given by this Court in "Common Cause" case so far as it related to restoration of one-third of the commuted pension. Consequently, the impugned para 4 of Office Memorandum dated 5-3-1987 is quashed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs."
(2.) As the respondents did not give effect to the judgment, the petitioners, on an earlier occasion, moved this Court in Contempt Petition No. 310 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court on 7-10-1996 by passing the following order:- "The counter has been filed wherein it has been stated that the directions of this Court are in the process of being complied with. The Contempt Petition is disposed of."
(3.) Thereafter, it appears that the respondents construing the judgment of this Court literally restored one-third of the commuted pension and denied all other attendant benefits as made available to the other Central Government pensioners. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have moved this Court once again by filing this Contempt Petition.;