JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.—The questions raised in these petitions, which we are called upon to answer are : (a) Whether a Government servant who has opted to be absorbed in a Service or post in a Corporation/undertaking or Company owned by the State Government is entitled to: (i) the restoration of commuted one-third of pension after the stipulated period under the rules; (ii) whether the persons who have commuted the full pension and are not in receipt of any monthly pension are entitled for the restoration of one-third of the commuted pension; (iii) whether such persons are entitled to interim relief, dearness allowance or other attendant benefits at par with retired Government servants. 2. The respondents were Government servants. They were permanently absorbed, in public interest, in the State owned Corporations /Companies on given dates. The petitioner Government by a Memorandum No. 14-2/64-Rin (R&E) dated July 8, 1976, regulated the payment of retirement benefits to the Government servants who are permanently absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies owned or controlled by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on or after June 16, 1967. The Memorandum in clause 2 provided: "2. The under mentioned terms regulate the payment of retirement benefits to Government servants who are permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies, on or after 16th June, 1967:— (i) A permanent Government servant on absorption in a public sector undertaking/autonomous body is eligible for pro-rata pension and Death-cum-retirement Gratuity based on the length of his qualifying service under Government till the date of absorption. The pension will be calculated on the basis of average emoluments for three years preceeding the date of absorption and the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on the basis of the emoluments immediately before absorption. (ii) In cases where a Government servant at the time of absorption has less than ten years service and is not entitled to pension, the question of proportionate pension will not arise, he will only be eligible to proportionate service gratuity in lieu of pension and D.C.R. Gratuity based on length of service. iii) The amount of pension/gratuity, and the D.C.R. Gratuity would be concurrently worked out and will be intimated to the Government servant concerned as well as to the undertaking/body as and when an employee is absorbed. iii) The amount of pension/gratuity, and the D.C.R. Gratuity would be concurrently worked out and will be intimated to the Government servant concerned as well as to the undertaking/body as and when an employee is absorbed. (iv) Every Government servant is to exercise an option, within six months of his absorption, for either of the alternatives indicated below:— (a) Receiving the monthly pension and D.C.R. Gratuity already worked out under the usual Government arrangements. (b) Receiving the gratuity and a lump stun amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to commutation tables obtaining on the date from which the pro-rata pension, gratuity, etc., would be disbursable." Where no option is exercised within the prescribed period, the employee will automatically be governed by alternative (b) above. Option once exercised shall be final. The option shall be exercised in writing and commuted by the Government servant concerned to the undertaking/autonomous body. (v) Cases of resignation from a public sector undertaking/autonomous body will, for the purpose of these orders, be treated as resignation from Government service, entailing forfeiture of earlier service under Government and loss of the pensionary benefits under these orders. (vi) For the period of service rendered in a public sector undertaking/autonomous body, the absorbed employees will be entitled to all the benefits admissible to other corresponding employees of the organization. (vii) The total gratuity admissible in respect of the service rendered under the Government and that under the public sector undertaking/autonomous body should not exceed the amount that would have been admissible had the Government servant continued in Government service and retired on the same pay which he drew on retirement from the public sector undertaking/autonomous body. (viii) Any further liberalization of pension rules decided upon by Government after the permanent absorption of a Government servant in a public sector undertaking/autonomous body would not be extended to him. However, the benefit of further liberalization in pension shall also be allowed to a Government servant after his permanent absorotion if, in any case, such liberalization is sanctioned retrospectively with effect from a date prior to the date of such absorption. (ix) In cases where an employee has opted to receive pension as at (iv) (a) above, but wishes to commute a portion of the pension, such commutation will be regulated in accordance with the Government rules in force at the time of commutation of his pension." 3. (ix) In cases where an employee has opted to receive pension as at (iv) (a) above, but wishes to commute a portion of the pension, such commutation will be regulated in accordance with the Government rules in force at the time of commutation of his pension." 3. Perusal of sub-clause 2 (iv), (a) and (b) shows that an absorbed Government employee could opt either to receive monthly pension or lump sum amount in lieu of pension. Sub-clause (ix) stipulates that if an absorbed employee opts to receive pension in terms of sub-clause (iv) and (a) above, but wishes to commute a portion of the pension, then such commutation is to be regulated in accordance with Government rules in force at the time of commutation of his pension. 4. Clause 12 provides that a Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service, in accordance with Rule 37 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 "pension rules for short", in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government, and such absorption is declared by the Government to be in public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and each of the Government servant shall exercise an option within six months of his absorption for either of the alternatives: (a) Receiving the monthly pension and D.C.R. Gratuity under usual Government arrangements; or (b) Receiving the gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to the commutation tables obtaining on the date from which the commuted value becomes payable and if an employee opts for monthly pension, then he shall be entitled to commutation of a portion of the pension admissible to him in accordance with the provisions of Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules which applies to the State Government employees and where an employee opts for second option, i.e. receiving gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of pension worked out with reference to the-commutation tables, he shall be entitled to terminal benefits for surrendering his rights to draw two-third pension. In addition, he would also be entitled to lump sum amount not exceeding commutation value of one-third of the pension as may be admissible to such employee in accordance with the provisions of Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules. 5. In addition, he would also be entitled to lump sum amount not exceeding commutation value of one-third of the pension as may be admissible to such employee in accordance with the provisions of Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules. 5. It may be noticed that there was no provision for the restoration of one-third of the commuted pension even to the retired Government employees. It was in Common Cause and others v. Union of India, (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142, that on the suggestion of the Apex Court, the Union Government agreed to restore the commuted portion of the pension in regard to all employees of the Central Government at the age of 70 years or after 15 years of retirement, which ever is later. The Union Government made it effective from April 1, 1986. However, the Apex Court, looking to the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 1983 and the matter came up for hearing before the Court in February, 1984 and the Union of India took some time in responding to the suggestion of the Court which delayed the disposal, the Court directed that the benefit be extended in respect of the one-third commuted portion of the pension with effect from April 1, 1985 to the Government employees. 6. In 1987, Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court praying for similar benefits as extended to the Government employees in "Common Cause". In this case, relief was also sought for the restoration of one-third portion of the "fully commuted pension". Their Lordships noticed that the facility of restoration of one-third pension create three categories: (a) The persons who have not commuted their pension and therefore draw full monthly pension from the Government; (b) The persons who have commuted one-third of the pension and therefore draw a sliced monthly pension reduced to the extent of commuted amount; (c) The persons who have commuted full pension and are not given any monthly pension by deeming monthly pension to have been reduced to nil 7. The persons falling in the first category continue to derive all the benefits of being a Government pensioner and get all the interim relief etc. The persons falling in the first category continue to derive all the benefits of being a Government pensioner and get all the interim relief etc. but the persons in (b) category are denied these benefits to the extent of "one-third commutation" and the third category were the worst hit who were totally denied these benefits including the restoration of one-third commuted pension. 8. Their Lordships after reading Rules 37 and 37-A of the Pension Rules held that so far commutation of one-third-pension is concerned, the petitioners in Welfare Association" as well as in "Common Cause" stand on the similar footing with no difference. It was also held that denial of benefit to the petitioners in "Welfare Association" as given to the "common case" petitioners violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Observations of Their Lordships in para 9 of the judgment being apposite may be reproduced : "9. From the above extracts, it will be seen that a clear-cut distinction is made in Rule 37-A itself between one-third portion of pension to be commuted without any condition attached and two-third portion of pension to be received as terminal benefits with condition attached with it. It follows that so far as commutation of one-third of the pension is concerned, the petitioners herein as well as petitioners in "Common Cause" case stand on similar footing with no difference. So far as the balance of two-third pension is concerned, the petitioners herein have received the commuted value (terminal benefits) on condition of their surrendering of their right of drawing two-thirds of their pension. This was not the case with the petitioners in "Common Cause" case. That being the position the denial of benefit given to "Common cause" petitioners to the present petitioners violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The reasoning for restoring one-third commuted pension in the case of "Common Cause" petitioners equally applies to the restoration of one-third commuted pension in the case of these petitioners as well." 9. Their Lordships in para 13 of the judgment observed: "13. The reasoning for restoring one-third commuted pension in the case of "Common Cause" petitioners equally applies to the restoration of one-third commuted pension in the case of these petitioners as well." 9. Their Lordships in para 13 of the judgment observed: "13. If after the expiry of 15 years, the pensioners who have opted for one-third commutation, become entitled to restoration of pension on the ground that the lump sum amount paid had got 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 have commuted their one-third portion of the pension under Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 without any commitment for this portion of commutation. Presumably, the respondents realizing the fallacy have withdrawn the Scheme of permitting commutation of full pension by O.M. No. 4/ 42/91 -P& PW (D) dated 31.3.1995. Para 3 of the Office Memorandum reads as follows: 3. The proposal to review the existing terms and conditions of absorption had been under consideration of the Government for quite some time passed. The President is now pleased to .. (sic) that the existing terms and conditions of absorption shall stand partially modified to the extent indicated below: (a) The existing facility of receiving capitalization value equivalent to 100% commutation of pension on absorption shall stand withdrawn; (b) The existing facility to draw pro rata monthly pension from the date of absorption (with option to commute l/3rd pension wherever admissible shall continue to exist.” 10. In this background, petitioner Government of Himachal Pradesh by a notification dated August 5,1982 (Annexure-A6) decided that a pensioner, who commutes a part of his pension and receive lump sum in lieu thereof, shall be entitled to the restoration of the commutation pension after he attained the age of 70 years. 11. This benefit was also extended to those absorbed employees who are in receipt of two-third of the pension, after commuting one-third of the pension, by a notification dated February 11, 1991. The relevant portion reads: "(b) The restoration of commuted portion of pension will be allowed only in those cases where the Government servants are receiving 2/3rd portion of pension as pension. The relevant portion reads: "(b) The restoration of commuted portion of pension will be allowed only in those cases where the Government servants are receiving 2/3rd portion of pension as pension. This benefit will also be admissible to those Government servants who on their permanent absorption in Government undertakings or Autonomous Bodies are in receipt of 2/3rd portion of pension after commuting l/3rd of pension. Such Government servants who on their permanent absorption in Government Undertakings or Autonomous bodies have received lump sum benefits (in lieu of pension) i.e. 1/3rd of commuted portion of pension and terminal benefits equal to balance amount of pension, will not be entitled to restoration of commuted portion of pension as they have ceased to be Government pensioners." (Emphasis given) 12. It is noticed that the benefit of restoration of one-third portion of commuted pension was denied to the employees who had received lump sum benefit, in lieu of the pension, i.e. one-third of the commuted portion of pension and terminal benefits equal to the balance amount of two-third pension. 13. After the judgment of the Apex Court in Welfare Association, the Government extended the benefit of restoration of one-third commuted portion of the pension even to the employees who are permanently absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/autonomous bodies and had drawn lump sum amount in lieu of the entire pension on their absorption by notification No. Fin. (Pen) A (3)-2/88 dated January 8, 1997 (Annexure-Rl in CWP No. 86 of 2003). The relevant para 3 of the notification reads : "3. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to decide that in partial modification of this Department OM dated 11-2-1991, the benefit of restoration of commuted pension shall be admissible to all those Government Servants who had been absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies notwithstanding the fact that having commuted the full pension they were not in receipt of any monthly pension.” 14. So far the question of benefit of interim relief, clearness allowance etc. So far the question of benefit of interim relief, clearness allowance etc. is concerned, the Apex Court in Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises and another v. Arvind Verma and others, (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 58 (Contempt Petition © No. 530 of 1997 in Writ Petition (C) No. 11855 of 1985) held that the Government employees who are permanently absorbed in the Public Sector Undertakings/enterprises would be entitled to the restoration of not only the pension as held in the judgment but also the attendant benefits given to the Central Government Pensioners. 15. In view of this settled position, we are of the view that the State Government employees who are permanently absorbed in Government Undertaking, Companies or Corporations are entitled to the restoration of one-third of the commuted pension along with attendant benefits including interim relief, dearness allowance which are payable to similarly situate retired Government employees irrespective of the fact that such absorbed employees had commuted full pension and were not in receipt of any monthly pension. The questions are accordingly answered. We may now take up individual cases: (i) State of H.P. v. R.D. Joshi (CWP No. 204 of 1998). In this case, the Tribunal by its impugned judgment held that the petitioner was not given opportunity to exercise proper option in terms of office memo dated August 5, 1982 (Annexure-A6) and therefore, was entitled to exercise fresh option and would be entitled to full pension after return of two-third of the commuted terminal benefits received by him. The view taken by the Tribunal is unsustainable. We set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to the restoration of one-third of commuted pension in terms of the notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh No. Fin (Pen) A (3J-2/88 dated January 8, 1997 (Annexure-R l in CWP No. 86 of 2003). Any excess amount received by respondent R.D. Joshi under the impugned orders of the Tribunal shall be deposited back with the petitioner within six weeks from today failing which the Petitioner State shall be entitled to affect recovery in accordance with law. (ii) CWP No. 86 of 2003, State v. Balbir Kaur. Any excess amount received by respondent R.D. Joshi under the impugned orders of the Tribunal shall be deposited back with the petitioner within six weeks from today failing which the Petitioner State shall be entitled to affect recovery in accordance with law. (ii) CWP No. 86 of 2003, State v. Balbir Kaur. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment has directed the release of one-third pension to the respondent Balbir Kaur along with the attendant benefits and revision of pension from time to time, in terms of Office Memo No. Fin. (Pen) A (3)-2/88 dated January 8, 1997 (Annexure-Rl in CWP No. 86 of 2003) and July 12, 2000 issued by the Union Government. The relief granted is modified to the extent that the Petitioners shall release one-third of the commuted pension to respondent Balbir Kaur with all attendant benefits including the interim relief, clearness allowance etc., as may be calculated in terms of the notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated January 8, 1997, noticed above, within six weeks from today. CM.P. No. 179 of 2003. No orders in view of disposal of the writ petition. (iii) State v. Hari Ram, CWP No. 132 of 2003. In this case, the Tribunal by its impugned judgment has directed the release of pensionary benefits in accordance with letter dated October 4, 1999 (Annexure A-16) with all attendant and consequential benefits from time to time. The relief granted is modified to the extent that the respondent Hari Ram shall be released one-third of the commuted pension with all attendant benefits including interim relief, dearness allowance as may be calculated in terms of notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated January 8, 1997, if not already paid within six weeks from today. (iv) CWP No. 199 of 2003, State v. R.C. Katoch. In this case, the Tribunal by its judgment, has allowed release of dearness allowance, interim relief etc., on full pension, which is unsustainable and is set aside. We direct that the petitioners shall release one-third of the commuted pension to the respondent with all attendant benefits, including interim relief, dearness allowance etc., as may be calculated in terms of notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated January 8, 1997 (supra). No costs.