THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.6975 OF 2005 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The writ petitioner is a retired Central Government Employee. He filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: (a) to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner from 17.10.1986 as per the revised pension of Rs.1,277/- p.m. after deducting the commutation portion of Rs.614/- and the pension revisions that took place from time to time; (b) to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the benefits of Central Government Health Scheme to the petitioner and his family from the date of retirement, as arbitrary and unconstitutional and; (c) direct the respondents to release all the arrears of amounts due to the petitioner on account of monthly pension of Rs.663/- p.m. payable to him since 17.10.1986 and the arrears of amounts of expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards himself and to his wife for medical treatment and operations undergone by them from 1.11.1987 with interest on arrears compounding at 18% p.a. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and as per the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, it could be seen that the petitioner joined in the service of Government of India in the Central Water and Power Commissioner in December, 1956 and pursuant to the selections made by the Union Public Service Commission, he joined in Border Roads Development Board in May, 1963 and subsequently, he was sent to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, which is a joint undertaking between the Central and A. P. State Governments with effect from 4.4.1975 and his service were absorbed in the said company with effect from 4.4.1979. The company does not have the pension benefits to the retired employees and as the petitioner was absorbed on 4.4.1979 in the company, his case is that he is deemed to have become retired from the services of the Government of India from the said date of absorption, and is entitled for pension. The pension payment orders were passed on 28.2.1985. The petitioner commuted the pension on 17.10.1986 and after the expiry of the period of commutation by order dated 6.8.2002, 1/3rd pension was restored to the petitioner with effect from 17.10.2001 but the family pension was not included. The petitioner was also not granted the benefit under the Central Government Health Scheme and as such, he had to incur huge expenditure for medical treatment. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has narrated different representations and the correspondence made by him with the respondents and alleged the delay caused by them in processing the pension papers. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16779/1997 and by order dated 26.2.2004 the Division Bench passed the following directions: 1. The petitioner is entitled for pension in accordance with the Rules either prorata or otherwise from 4.4.1979 till the date of 100% commutation of pension. 2. The petitioner is entitled for simple interest on death-cum-retirement gratuity, which became payable on 4.4.1979 till date of its actual payment at the rate of 9% per annum 3. The arrears and also the amount which became payable to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. With regard to CGHS facility, it is held to be open for the petitioner to make an application to the CGHS authorities on the ground that he is a Central Government pensioner and the same shall be considered by the authorities treating him as Central Government pensioner and take action in accordance with law. 4. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though in compliance of the above directions, the respondents have granted the pension from 4.4.1979 till the date of commutation; made applicable the revision of pension from 1.1.1986 to 17.10.1986 and granted arrears of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity with interest, vide proceedings BRDB Let.No.F.Nbo.BRDB?120(28)/1974/GE.I dated 26.7.2004; he was not granted the CGHS benefits and other amounts which are payable to him. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he commuted 100% pension on 17.10.1986 when it was fixed at Rs.614/-. After commutation, the pension was revised to Rs.1,277/- p.m. retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1986. But the balance of pension is not released till the judgment of the High Court of A.P. W.P.No.16779/1997 dated 26.2.2004. His grievance is that as the pension was fixed at Rs.614/-, he commuted the entire pension and as on the said date due to the revision, it ought to have been Rs.1,277/- and the said revision has not been fixed, therefore, the commutation of pension shall be taken as only 48% i.e., Rs.614/- out of Rs.1,277/- and it shall not be treated as 100%. The further grievance of the petitioner is that after a period of 18 years and after the judgment of the High Court of A.P., the action of the respondents in treating the commutation of Rs.614/- as 100% cannot be sustained. The further case of the petitioner is that the difference of amount is very meager in the year 2004 as compared to the year 1986 in view of inflation and high rise in price and hence the respondents cannot seek to pay the difference at this stage and hold that the petitioner has commuted full pension at that point of time and apply such principle by restoring only 1/3rd pension after 15 years instead of full pension. Thus the case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be treated as commuted only 48 percent of pension on 17.10.1986 and thus he is entitled for restoration of full pension after completion of 15 yeas i.e., on 17.10.2001. The further grievance of the petitioner is that as the Government dispensed with the commutation of 100% pension in the year 1995, in the year 2004, the respondents are not entitled to say that the commutation made by the petitioner in October, 1986 as 100% without seeking for fresh option and thus the action of the respondents is in violation of Rules 6 and 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. The further grievance of the petitioner is that till date the CGHS held scheme is not extended to him. 6. One N.S.Solke s/o Shri Sharad Chandra D.Solke working as Officer, Commanding, Easter Store Division (GREF) filed counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent – Boarder Roads Development Board. In the counter affidavit it is stated that as per the judgment of this court dated 26.2.2004 in W.P.No.16779/1997 the petitioner was paid all the amounts correctly and he is not due any amount. With regard to CGHS benefit, it is stated that the petitioner had applied to the Director General Central Health Scheme, New Delhi for issue of CGHS Card vide application dated 2.6.2004 and accordingly the matter was taken with Additional Director vide letter dated 23.6.2004 and thereafter nothing has been heard from the petitioner by the department. Referring to Rule 10 of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, the case of the 1st respondent is that no fresh option for 100% commutation need be taken from the petitioner. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has been paid all the amounts that he is due as per the judgment of the High Court and that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is sought to be dismissed. 7. From the above the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is an employee of the Government of India and pursuant to his absorption in the Company with effect from 4.4.1979 he became entitled for the pension and the benefits under the Central Government Health Scheme, as the company subsequently he joined has no pension facility for the retired employees. On 17.10.1986 the petitioner commuted the entire pension when it was fixed at Rs.614/-. Subsequently, with effect from 1.1.1986 the revision took place and in the said revision, the pension was fixed at Rs.1,277/- per month. It is also admitted fact that the after the judgment of this court in W.P.No.16779/1987 dated 26.2.2004 the difference of pension was paid to the petitioner. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that had his pension was fixed at Rs.1,277/-, he would not have commuted the entire pension and as it was fixed only at Rs.614/- he commuted the entire pension and therefore the commutation pension of Rs.614/- shall be treated only as 48% i.e. out of Rs.1,277/-. His further grievance is that had the lumpsum amount for commutation of Rs.1,277/- been paid to him in the year 1986 it would have been a very high amount, but paying the said amount in the year 2004, because of inflation, would be very meager and therefore, the respondents ought to have taken a fresh option for commutation, since the 100% commutation has been dispensed with since 1995. Therefore, treating the commutation of pension made by him on 17.10.1986 only as 48%, he is entitled for the full pension after the completion of 15 years and not 1/3rd pension. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that as per the judgment of this Court, they made the entire payments and the petitioner is not due any amount and as per Rule 10, no fresh option need be taken and the commutation of the pension has to be taken only as 100% based on the original commutation made by the petitioner. 8. The above aspects needs to be considered in the light of the provisions under the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 by the respondents and the disputed questions with regard to calculations cannot be made under the writ jurisdiction. Further the petitioner has already made representations and also got issued a legal notice dated 6.9.2004. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. With regard to CGHS benefits the case of the petitioner is that he incurred expenditure and in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that he incurred huge expenditure to undertake major operations to his wife and himself and is continuing to incur huge amount and medical reimbursement is not granted to him. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner made representation on 2.6.2004 and the matter is under process. However pursuant to the interim directions of this court, the CGHS card was issued to the petitioner and his wife. But the amounts incurred by the petitioner were not reimbursed since the date of retirement from the company i.e., 1.11.1987. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any representation with necessary details. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With regard to the CGHS benefits and reimbursement, the petitioner shall submit detailed representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of two moths thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with regard to reimbursement. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 05—11—2008