IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 10750 of 2008. Decided on: 21.05.2010. Shri Niwas Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- The Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For respondents No. 2 and 3. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. None for other respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is seeking restoration of full pension after 180 months of the receipt of amount of commuted value of pension. According to the respondent-State, as per letters dated 8th January, 1997 and 15th December, 1997, only 1/3rd commuted pension is restored after 15 years of such commutation or after pensioner/absorbee attains the age of 70 years of age, which ever is earlier. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Vijender Dutt Sharma versus 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. State of H.P. and others, CWP(T) No. 16061 of 2008, dated 19th May, 2010. According to him, his client is also ready and willing to make a representation on the basis of judgment dated 19th May, 2010. Paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment dated 19th May, 2010 read thus: “2. It is seen from the reply that restoration is limited to 1/3rd only in view of Annexure R-1 office memorandum. What essentially the petitioner seeks is the modification of Annexure R-1 office memorandum and consequential restoration of his pension in full. 3. Petitioner relies upon several judgments of the Supreme Court to the effect that after a period of 15 years, pension has to be restored in full. Since office memorandum, referred to above, stands in the way and since the validity of the same being not under challenge in this writ petition, we are of the view that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to move a representation before the respondents seeking modification of office memorandum. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents that in the event of petitioner moving the government by way of making appropriate representation, seeking modification of Annexure R-1 office memorandum, matter shall be duly considered by the Government, adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner and appropriate order in accordance with law shall be passed within four months, on production of the copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of writ petition.” 3. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents that in the event of petitioner moving the Government by way of making appropriate representation, seeking modification of office memorandum, dated 08.01.1997, matter shall be duly considered by the Government, adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner and appropriate order, in accordance with law, shall be passed within four months, on production of the copy of this judgment alongwith copy of writ petition. 4. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 21, 2010. (bhupender)