Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, the prayer on behalf of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore his pension, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in d. S. Nakara V/s. Union of india, reported in A. I. R.1983 S. C.130 and in view of the Circular of the Government of bihar, bearing No.646/f. D. dated March 8, 1983, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. 2. In short, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, in his long career spanning more than 35 years of executive work, had served Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (in short tisco), then in the Government of bihar, first as Chief Engineer, Sindri Superphosphate Factory, then as General manager of Bihar State Industrial development Corporation Ltd. and later as Deputy Chief Engineer (Mechanical) and subsequently as Chief engineer (Mechanical) General manager Construction of M/s Bokaro steel Limited, where he worked as a deputationist at the instance of his employer, Government of Bihar. On 23rd August, 1976, the petitioner on deputation joined the Indian Oil Corporation limited (in short ioc) at new Delhi as General Manager (Pipe Lines) and thereafter appointed as general Manager, Barauni Refinery. 3. It is stated that in course of his deputation with IOC, a Government of india Undertaking, a request was made by the said Organisation to / the secretary, Department of Industries, government of Bihar (Respondent No.3)for agreeing to petitioners permanent absorption in the said organisation in public interest by letter dated 27th August, 1976. A true copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 1. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3, vide order dated 28th september, 1977, gave approval for his permanent absorption in IOC with effect from the date of his joining on 23rd august, 1976. The petitioner thereafter continued to work in IOC until 1980. At the time of absorption in the aforesaid public Sector Undertaking, the petitioner exercised his option to receive lump-sum amount in lieu of monthly pension worked with reference to commutation tables then existing in the Pension Rules of the Government of Bihar. 4. The petitioner thereafter continued to work in IOC until 1980. At the time of absorption in the aforesaid public Sector Undertaking, the petitioner exercised his option to receive lump-sum amount in lieu of monthly pension worked with reference to commutation tables then existing in the Pension Rules of the Government of Bihar. 4. State Government Circular No. P. C. Pen.1044/70-/1956-P, dated 18th february, 1974 regulating terms of permanent absorption provided that the government servant who was permitted to be absorbed in a Public Sector Undertaking would be deemed to have retired from Government service from the date of permanent absorption in the public Sector Undertaking and such government servants would have the option of receiving either monthly pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity by them worked out under the usual government Pension Rules or a lumpsum amount in lieu of pension worked with reference to commutation tables obtaining on the date from which the pro-rata pension, gratuity etc. were disbursable and further in clause (vi) it is stated that any further liberalisation of the pension rules decided upon by the government after permanent absorption of the Government servant would not be extended to him. It also stipulated that the employee will undertake not to take up any private employment without the approval of the State government in case his services get terminated in the Public Sector Undertaking either at his or employers instance within two years period of permanent absorption on pro-rata pension. In clause (v) it is provided that the government would not accept any liability for family pension in case of government servants permanently absorbed in Public Undertakings. 5. Its is stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner in due compliance with the above referred circular of 18th February, 1974, exercised his option of having his monthly pension commuted in full and thereupon respondent No.3 by a letter dated 24th june, 1978, duly accepted the exercise of the said option and in accordance with the rules of the State Government then prevailing, respondent No.3 worked out a commuted lumpsum in the amount of rs.58,641.12 p. A true copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 2. 6. According to the petitioner, the state Government had commuted the monthly pension to about 152 times as lump-sum payment, i. e. , in lieu of about 12 years life span. 6. According to the petitioner, the state Government had commuted the monthly pension to about 152 times as lump-sum payment, i. e. , in lieu of about 12 years life span. Under rule 259 of the bihar Pension Rules, 1950, (in short the Rules), a commutation once applied for, sanctioned and given effect to cannot be rescinded, i. e. , the portion of a pension commuted cannot be resorted on refund of its capitalised value. However, the Finance Department of the state Government by Circular bearing no.646/f. D. dated 8th March, 1983 after due consideration modified rule 259 of the Rules prohibiting restoration of commuted part of pension and decision that the restoration will be done after completion of ten years which period was to be counted from the date when the commuted part was deducted from the pension. The said order was made effective from 1-10-1982. It was further provided in the said circular that the benefit of restoration would be made available to those pensioners in whose case ten years period of deduction of commuted part of the pension got completed or would be completed. A true copy of the said circular has been annexed as Annexure 3. ] 7. It is stated by the petitioner that he was not aware of the said circular. However, in view of the newspaper report of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of "common Cause", a register Society and others V/s. Union of india, AIR 1987 SC 210 that commuted portion would be restored and pensioners will start receiving full pension after 15 years, the petitioner wrote to the State Government requesting restoration of the pension from 9th august, 1991 after getting 15 years period completed on 22nd August, 1991. A true copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 4. In reply to the said letter, the Secretary of the finance Department, Government of bihar, vide letter, bearing No. PC. A true copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 4. In reply to the said letter, the Secretary of the finance Department, Government of bihar, vide letter, bearing No. PC. I. L.1199/91/7805 dated 8th October, 1991, rejected the petitioners request for restoration of pensionary benefits on the ground that the benefits of change brought in effect by modification of the rules would not be available to him because of petitioners release from the state Government service on 23rd august, 1976 when rule 259 of the Rules was inforce and also in view of clauses (ii) and (vi) of the aforementioned memo dated 28th February, 1974 (which has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter-affidavit) which provided that the future liberalisation benefits would not be extended, as also considering the fact that the benefit of restoration of commuted part of the pension was made effective from October 1, 1982, i. e. , long after petitioners absorption in the aforesaid Public Sector Undertaking. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of Bihar and the secretary, Department of Finance, government of Bihar (respondent No.1 and 2, respectively ). In the said counter-affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner was initially employed in the industries Department of the State government when he was appointed in the said Department on 10-12-1956 and continued in the said Department till 22-8-1976, whereafter he was permanently absorbed in the I. O. C. with effect from 23.8.1976 on the terms and conditions mentioned in Finance department letter No.1044/70/195f dated 18-2-1974 as would appear from the letter bearing Memo No.1975 dated 28-1-1977 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). Further, it is stated that the perusal of the said letter dated 18-2-1974 would indicate that any further liberalisation of the rules decided upon by the Government after permanent absorption of a Government servant in public Undertaking would not be extended to him and in this view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner to extend the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme, contained in State governments resolution bearing No.616 dated 8-3-1983 is wholly misconceived and fit to be rejected. A copy of the Government circular dated 18th february, 1974 has been annexed as Annexure A. 9. It was contended by Mr. A copy of the Government circular dated 18th february, 1974 has been annexed as Annexure A. 9. It was contended by Mr. Maitin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of the State government, contained in Annexure 5, rejecting the petitioners request for restoration of pensionary benefits is bad and unsustainable in law. According to him, the logic invoked in support of the said decision is the provision, contained in Government Circular dated 18th february, 1974 (Annexure A) which itself is based and derived from rule 259 of the Rules which stands modified by the Government Circular dated 8th march, 1983 (Annexure 3 ). It was contended by him that by the said Circular, the Government decided to restore the commuted part of pension with effect from 1st October, 1982 of all the government servants who had completed ten years period of deduction of commuted part, whether retiring before 1st October, 1982 or thereafter, but the logic of the State Government to deny the said benefit to the petitioner appeared to be that August 23, 1976, since when the petitioner was finally absorbed in the service of the I. O. C. (Public Sector Undertaking), has been taken to be a cut off date in his case and as the unmodified rule 259 of the Rules, which prohibited restoration of commuted part of pension, was in force on that date, the restoration benefit could not be conferred on him. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that clauses (ii), (v) and (vi) of 1974 Circular (Annexure a) cannot be sustained, being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India as the said criteria is being adopted only in the case of the Government servants allowed the benefit of commutation of pension by virtue of their absorption in public Sector Undertaking and not in the case of the Government Servants retired from service even much before the retirement of the petitioner, but not by virtue of their absorption in any Public Sector Undertaking. 11. 11. Further, learned Counsel for, the petitioner contended that to deprive the benefit of liberalisation and restoration of pension under Annexure 3 to the government servants retiring by virtue of their absorption in Public Sector Undertakings by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria would tantamount to dividing a homogenous class of retired government employees and such classification being not based on any discernible rational principle is violative of article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the State Government is treating differently to a group of employees who retired before August 23, 1976 and those retired thereafter or after the cut of date, i. e. , 1-10-1982 and between those who retired from the Government service and those who retired by virtue of their absorption in Public Sector Undertaking. 12. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if pension could be restored from 1-10-1982, in case of an employee who completed ten years of commutation either before or after that date, there cannot be any ostensible explanation as to why it should not be restored in respect of an employee who retired or is deemed to have retired on his permanent absorption in public undertaking after his completion of ten years of commutation. It was also contended that likewise there cannot be any reason to extend the benefit of restoration of pension to an employee who had his pension commuted in part and denied the same to those who commuted the entire pension like the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision, Apex Court in the case of D. S. Nakara (supra) and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme court in the case of common Cause (supra ). The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court, in the case of Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and ors. V/s. Union of India and Am, reported in 1995 (7) SCALE 295 . 13. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court, in the case of Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and ors. V/s. Union of India and Am, reported in 1995 (7) SCALE 295 . 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the specific provisions, contained in 1974 circular, in due compliance of which the petitioner exercised his option and commuted monthly pension in full, he cannot turn around and challenge the validity of the same after twenty years and/or contend that the prohibitions imposed under the said circular will not apply to his case, in view of the subsequent Government decision of the year 1983, contained in annexure 3, particularly when by the said Circular the State Government has not superseded the said provisions of its 1974 Circular. According to the learned counsel for the State Clauses 6 of 1983 circular only contemplates modification of the Rules and the Treasury Code accordingly and not the conditions mentioned in 1974 Circular. As such, according to him, the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions will have no application to the facts of the present case which are completely different from the facts of those cases before the Apex Court. 14. Mrs. Sharma learned Standing counsel appearing for the Accountant-General also supported the submission of the learned State Counsel and submitted that the facts in the case, referred to above, before the Apex Court, were quite different. Even in the case of Welfare Association of Absorbed Central government Employees in Public enterprises and Ors. (supra), the Supreme court allowed the benefit of restoration on consideration of the fact that as per the condition imposed in the absorption order the payment of family pension not provided in Public Undertaking in which the retired Government servants were absorbed was contained. (supra), the Supreme court allowed the benefit of restoration on consideration of the fact that as per the condition imposed in the absorption order the payment of family pension not provided in Public Undertaking in which the retired Government servants were absorbed was contained. The supreme Court, thus, held that the stand of the respondents that the petitioners of the said case on commuting their pension in full ceased to be the central Government pensioners was not correct and, accordingly, it was held that the denial of one-third commutation of pension was not justified whereas, in the instant case, the conditions imposed in the absorption order as per 1974 Circular clearly stipulated that the Government would not accept any liability for family pension in case of government servants permanently absorbed in Public Under takings and that any further liberalisation of rules decided upon by the Government after permanent absorption of a Government servant in Public Undertaking would not be extended to him. Thus, according to her, the petitioner, being bound by the said conditions, cannot claim the benefits allowed to a Government servant under 1983 Circular (Annexure 3), particularly when the applicability of the said benefit has not been extended to a Government servant who is permanently absorbed in the Public Sector Undertaking. 15. There appears to be some substance in the submission of Mrs. Sharma, it is true that the Apex Court in the case of Welfare Association of Absorbed central Government Employees (supra)held that if after the expiry of 15 years, the pensioners who have opted for one-third commutation would become entitled to restoration of pension on the ground that the lump-sum amount paid had not adjusted before the said period as held in common Cause case, there is no good reason for not applying the same to the petitioners who had commuted their one-third portion of the pension under Rule 37-A of the Pension rules, 1972 without any commitment for this portion of commutation, which the respondents realising the fallacy have withdrawn the scheme of permitting commutation of full pension. 16. In fact, the question and the facts involved in the common Cause case (supra) were completely different. Under the rules, civilian pensioners as well as the pensioners of Armed Forces, both, were given the benefit of commutation of pension. 16. In fact, the question and the facts involved in the common Cause case (supra) were completely different. Under the rules, civilian pensioners as well as the pensioners of Armed Forces, both, were given the benefit of commutation of pension. The only distinction which was being sought to be created was regarding the period after which they would become entitled to avail the said benefit. The Apex Court, on consideration of various factors, held that on the expiry of 15 years from the period of retirement such restoration would take place and extended the said benefit with effect from 1-4-1985 in the case of civilian pensioners as well as the Defence Personnel. 17. In the case of D. S. Nakara and others V/s. Union of India (supra), the question was as to whether the classification in the revised Government formula between pensioners on the basis of date of retirement specified in the Memoranda is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that all pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner government by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement was held to be irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In the case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, the apex Court held that their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in further commencing from the specified date and no arrears would be payable to them. Accordingly, the Apex court did not find any difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and severed the same. 18. So far as the case before the supreme Court filed on behalf of the welfare Association of Absorbed central Government Employees in public Enterprises (supra) is concerned, the facts were that the Government of india sent some of their Officers to the public Undertakings, on deputation and later allowed them to be absorbed in those Public Undertakings/enterprises. The Government offered to deem their retirement as retirement in public interest and consequently, such absorbed/retired Government servants were offered retrial benefits. The Government offered to deem their retirement as retirement in public interest and consequently, such absorbed/retired Government servants were offered retrial benefits. They were also offered the usual facility of community one-third of their original pension under Civil Pensions (Commutation) rules and were also offered additional facility of commuting the balance two-thirds pension, i. e. to commute the full pension. The Central government, while giving effect to the judgment in common Cause case (supra), denied the same benefit to the absorbed Central Government employees in Public Enterprises by inserting paragraph 4 in the impugned Office Memorandum dated 5-3-1987 on the ground that such employees having received or opted to receive commuted value for one-third of pension as well as terminal benefit equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension left after commuting one-third of pension ceased to be the Central Government pensioners. 19. The petitioners of the said case prayed that they be also granted the same relief in the light of the judgment in common Cause case (supra ). The supreme Court, while dealing with the relevant Rules 37 and 37-A of the c. C. A. Pension Rules, 1972, noticed that a clear-cum distinction be made in rule 37-A itself between one-third portion of pension to be commuted without any condition attached and two-thirds portion of pension to be received as terminal benefits with condition attached with it That being the position it was held by the Apex Court that the denial of benefit given to common Cause to the petitioners of the said case violated articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that the reasoning for restoring one-third commuted pension in the case of common Cause equally applied to the restoration of one-third commuted pension in their case also. Further, the supreme Court also took into account that as per the condition imposed in the absorption order, the family pension when not provided in the Public Undertakings in which the retired Government servants were absorbed, the payment of family pension was continued by the Government. 20. Further, the supreme Court also took into account that as per the condition imposed in the absorption order, the family pension when not provided in the Public Undertakings in which the retired Government servants were absorbed, the payment of family pension was continued by the Government. 20. Thus, from the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that commutations in those cases were made without any commitment and that the relationship of the pensioners with the Central government had not completely ceased and in fact, in certain matters, the central Government still had the liability to discharge against the pensioners and/or their families whereas, in the present case, as per the terms of absorption, vide Annexures 1, 2 and 3, after final commutation of pension by the petitioner, his relationship with the state Government completely stood cut off so much so that the Government allowed his services to be absorbed with the conditions that it would not accept any liability for family pension in case of his being permanently absorbed in the public Undertaking and any further liberalisation of the rules decided upon by the Government after his permanent absorption in the Public Undertaking would not be extended to him. The petitioner accepted the said conditions and, accordingly, allowed himself to be permanently absorbed in the I. O. C. , a public Sector Undertaking, only whereafter the scheme for restoration of pension came into effect under 1983 government Circular. Thus, in my opinion, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Welfare Association of absorbed Central Government employees in Public Enterprises (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner of the present writ application. 21. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Petition Dismissed.