Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and other subordinate officers against the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No.457 of 2005. The said original application was filed by the present respondent No. 1, challenging the order of removal dated 5.9.2000, removing him from the post of SG Mail-man under the present petitioner No.2. The order of removal was passed on the ground that the concerned employee had remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period, without taking any prior permission and without filing any application. In the departmental proceedings, initially the employee had remained absent. But, subsequently, after he had appeared, he had not taken any specific stand, but simply admitted his absence and had prayed for license. However, the departmental authority thought it fit to remove him from service. Thereafter, the original application was filed, along with an application for condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The main ground in the petition for condonation of delay was to the effect that the petitioner had lost his mental balance for quite a long period, as his wife had deserted him and he had to look after two minor daughters, minor son and aged mother. It is also apparent from the observation of the Tribunal that even at times, the petitioner was going away from his house without informing anybody and he was being secured by the relatives and the well wishers. In this back ground, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had lost his mental balance for quite sometime and therefore, instead of order of removal, the punishment should be reduced to one of compulsory retirement so that the person would be able to draw some retirement benefits. It is also to be noted that prior to the order of removal, the petitioner had worked for 22 years as Mail-man and overall period of about 32 years. Having regard to all these aspects, the Tribunal taking an overall and obviously humanitarian view of the matter has modified the order of punishment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. Having regard to all these aspects, the Tribunal taking an overall and obviously humanitarian view of the matter has modified the order of punishment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. It is first stated by him that there was long delay of more than five years in filing the original application and such delay has been condoned without considering any reasons. Even though there may be some justification in such criticism advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to reverse the order of the Tribunal on this account, particularly, when the order has been passed, condoning the delay in aid of substantive justice. Even though the Tribunal thought that the delay was for 312 days and not more, the fact remains that the petitioner had lost his mental balance and he was going away cannot be found fault with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also seriously contended that once the delinquency of unauthorised absence had been found, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. Mohammed Ayub Naz JT 2006 (1) SC 162. In the said case, it was found that the employee was deliberately absent for long period. In such a scenario, the Supreme Court held that the removal order should be passed in respect of public servants who remained deliberately absent. 5. In the present case, in view of the finding that the petitioner had lost his mental balance, we cannot hold that his absence was deliberate. Since a humanistic view has been taken by the Tribunal in its discretion, we do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary order passed by the Tribunal should be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly, when there is a finding by the Tribunal that the employee had lost mental balance. Apart from the above, it is also found that the wife of the first respondent had deserted him and he had the additional burden of bringing up two daughters and a minor son. Having regard to these aspects, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should interfere. Apart from the above, it is also found that the wife of the first respondent had deserted him and he had the additional burden of bringing up two daughters and a minor son. Having regard to these aspects, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should interfere. However, since the first respondent himself had approached the Tribunal after a long lapse of five years, it was not proper for the Tribunal to grant pension from the date of removal. We modify such order and we direct that the order regarding grant of pension would be operative from the date of presentation of the original application before the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, in modification of the order passed by the Tribunal, we direct that the first respondent shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired from service with effect from the date of removal, i.e. on 5.9.2000 And he will be entitled to pensionary and other retirement benefits, by including his service upto 5.9.2000. However, since the respon­dent No. 1 had approached the Tribunal after a lapse of five years, no amount towards pen­sion shall be payable to him for the period from 5.9.2000 till the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal and pension shall be payable from the date of filing of the application before the Tribunal. 7. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted showing the details of the amount payable to the first re­spondent. The learned counsel for the peti­tioners has submitted details of Eligible Pension payable to the first respondent, which is extracted hereunder: 1. Name Of the Ex-employee: Shri M. Karunanidhi. 2. Designation: SG Mail-man. 3. Scale of pay: Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4,000. 4. Date of birth: 29.9.1950. 5. Date of appointment: 25.8.1971. 6. Date of superannuation: 30.9.2010 AN. 7. Total length of service excluding DiesNon period: (i) Upto superannuation (Presuming the period from the date of removal to date of superannuation as qualifying service): 31 years, 1 month and 9 days. (ii) Upto date of removal: 22 years and 13 days. 8. Pension: Rs. 2,720/- p.m. (i) If retired on superannuation (pension calculated by giving increment for each year for 9 years i.e. the period taken as Qualifying service from the date of removal upto superannuation). Dearness relief­ 21 % as on date. (ii) Upto date of removal: 22 years and 13 days. 8. Pension: Rs. 2,720/- p.m. (i) If retired on superannuation (pension calculated by giving increment for each year for 9 years i.e. the period taken as Qualifying service from the date of removal upto superannuation). Dearness relief­ 21 % as on date. (ii) if retired on the date of removal from service (5.9.2000), eligible for. minimum pension of Rs. 1,275/- only and the minimum pension is Rs. 1913/- w.e.f 1.4.2004. Pension: Rs.1,275/- p.m. DR.41% Rs. 523/-p.m. (as on 1.7.2000). 9. (i) Pension from 12.1.2005 to 17.3.2006 (presumed that the official retired on the date of removal): Rs. 1913/- p.m. + D.R. (Rs. 326/from 12.1.2005 to 30.6.2005 @ 17% & Rs. 402/- from 1.7.2005 to 17.3.2006 @ 21 %. Total Pension from 12.1.2005 to 17.3.2006 (for 15 months): Rs. 27,152 + 1,840 + 3,436 = Rs. 32,428/-". 8. Therefore, the first respondent will be entitled to pension as indicated in paragraph 9 of the said chart with effect from 12.1.2005. The arrears from 12.1.2005 till 17.3.2006 shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order And thereafter shall be paid to the first respondent, as per the normal procedure. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. 9. The writ petition is disposed of on the above said terms. No costs. The connected WPMP is closed. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.