JUDGMENT 1. - The controversy in regard to revising/re-fixing the pension of officers/men who retired at the age of 55 years based on 30 years of qualifying service for full pension instead of 33 years, had been settled by the Supreme Court long back in the case of Raghunandan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2125 . The Supreme Court had clearly held that in the matter of retirement at the age of 55 years, the qualifying service should be treated as 30 years instead of 33 years. 2. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred above, many effected persons approached different Courts and relief was granted to them accordingly. Now an order dated 1-7-2002 has been passed by the respondents granting the above relief to only those persons who have judgment of the High Courts in their favour. While challenging the letter dated 1-7-2002, prayer has been made to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner also as has been given to the similarly situated persons, who had approached the Courts. 3. The letter dated 1-7-2002 is reproduced here its under : "The DSG : BSF/CRPF/ClSF/NSG/lTBP/AR/SSB. Sub. : Revision/re-fixing the pension of officers/men who retire at the age of 55 years based on 30 years of qualifying service for full pension, instead of 33 years. A number of pensioners of Central Para Military Forces, who had superannuated at the age of 55 years, had approached various Courts for the refixation of their pension based on 30 years of qualifying service instead of 33 years of qualifying service. A number of pensioners of CPMF's had also obtained Court orders from various Courts in their favour based on this judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. It has now been decided in consultation with Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law that the benefit of full pension on completion of 30 years of qualifying service in case of personnel who had superannuated at the age of 55 years may, for the present, be extended only to the petitioners in cases where the judgments of the High Courts have gone in their favour. 3. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance vide their Dy. No. 70/5/2002-IC, dated 24-6-02 and IFD Dy. No. 599/2001-Fin.II dated 26-6-2002." 4. The finality of the decisions given by various High Courts has not been disputed so far. 3. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance vide their Dy. No. 70/5/2002-IC, dated 24-6-02 and IFD Dy. No. 599/2001-Fin.II dated 26-6-2002." 4. The finality of the decisions given by various High Courts has not been disputed so far. A bare reading of the letter itself would show that the respondents have principally admitted the claim of such persons. It is rather very unfortunate and surprising that the respondents have now taken the stand that they will grant the benefit only to those persons who approach the Courts. As a matter of fact, once the controversy been settled by the Supreme Court, the benefit should have been given by the respondents to all similarly situated persons irrespective of their approaching any Court. The very approach of dragging the concerned employees into litigation is nothing but sheer torture, mental agony and financial loss to such employees. Unnecessary financial loss is also caused to the public exchequer in such litigation apart from wasting the valuable time of the Courts also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Bhopal Singh v. Union of India & ors., Civil Writ No. 4779/2002, decided on 28-5-2003 in which the Division Bench has considered the entire controversy and the judgments passed by different Courts in this regard and has observed that the benefit should have been given to all similarly situated employees irrespective of their approaching the Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition allowed. The order dated 1-7-2003 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner taking his qualifying service for full pension as 30 years. Arrears of unpaid pension computed as above, shall be paid to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Since there has been no justification, whatsoever, in issuing the letter dated 1-7-2003, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to pay the interest on the amount due @ 9% from the date it was payable till actual payment is made. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- may also be paid to the petitioner along with the arrears, as referred above.Petition allowed. *******