IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 446 of 2003 (S/B) Purushottam Patni, S/o Late Shri D.N. Patni, R/o Jakhan Devi, Almora, District Almora. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Director General (SSB), East Block-V, R.K. Puram East, New Delhi – 110066. 3. Director of Accounts (SSB Wing) Block-9, (East) R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110066. …. Respondents Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C. J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for the respondents. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Purushottam Patni has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondent to fix the full pension of the petitioner @50% of the pay last drawn having put in more than 30 years of qualifying service and retiring on superannuation at the age of 55 years in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble 2 Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghunandan Lal Chaudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 2125 w.e.f. the date when the petitioner was retired. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to make the payment of difference of pension and other retrial benefits i.e. full pension admissible @50% per annum of the pay last drawn and the amount actually paid from time to time alongwith interest of 18% per annum alongwith the amount of difference of commutation and gratuity etc. iii. issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. iv. award of the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 25.10.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 700 of 2005 (Union of India and another Vs. Satish Kumar), whereby the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2125 was overruled, now, virtually nothing survives for decision in the writ petition as the petitioner’s entire claim was based on the decision in the case of Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others (supra). 4. Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above factual situation in the case. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. With the above order, CLMA No. 892 of 2007 also stands disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 01.05.2007 01.05.2007 Kawal