(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 70 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 70 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 70 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner Versus Haffkine Bio-Chemicals Pharmaceutical Employees Union and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. G.W. Mattos, A.G.P. for Review Petitioner. Mr. N.M. Ganguli for R.Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. N.R. Patankar for R. No. 5. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: APRIL 06, 2009 DATED: APRIL 06, 2009 DATED: APRIL 06, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard forthwith. . It is the contention of the Review Applicants that the commutation of pension should be worked out from 9.11.1995 and 4.7.1996 when 90% of the pensionary benefits were deposited in the Provident Fund Accounts of the 62 employees represented by the Pensioner’s Union. . The question is whether any case has been made out for review. In the first instance, it may be pointed out that these employees had been treated as permanent employees by Government G.R. dated 8.5.1995 which refers to Government G.R. dated (-2-) 19.9.1975. The date of transfer of these employees from the service of the State of Maharashtra to Respondent No. 5 was 1.9.1975. The date of permanency has therefore to refer back to that date, as after 1.9.1975 they were no longer in the service of State of Maharashtra but with Respondent No. 5. . In an another Writ Petition being W.P.No. 1217 of 2002 preferred by some other employees of the Respondent No. 5, we have disposed of the same by order dated 5.10.2006. The said employees had approached this court contending that the period of 15 years for the purpose of commutation should be computed from 1.9.1975 and not 13.3.1980 on the date of which the Government decided to commute the pension inspite of the fact that earlier resolution was that pension should be commuted at the time when they retire from the services of Respondent No.5. In the light of that we had taken a view that the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal holding that the date 13.3.1980 be taken as date of commutation was not arbitrary. . The present set of employees represented by the Union are in the same class as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1217 of 2002. Once that be the case, they cannot be put or treated differently than the set of other employees for the purpose of (-3-) commutation of pension. In the light of that the date 13.3.1980 should be considered as the date for the purpose of counting 15 years. The balance 10% amount which was not paid should also be paid with interest calculated thereon at the rate of 8% p.a. from 13.3.1980. . Considering the above, in our opinion, there is no merit in this Review Petition which is accordingly dismissed. Time to comply with the directions extended by further period of four months from today. With the above observations, Review Petition disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)