JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cryptic four page order passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 1885/1999 filed by the petitioner is sans any reasons. Indeed, the impugned order dated October 19, 2000 disposes of O.A. No. 1885/1999 without any reasons. 2. In the first eight paragraphs of the impugned order the relevant facts and the stand of the respective parties has been noted. The operative part of the order i.e. Para 9 reads as under:- 9. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records placed before me, I feel that the applicant is not entitled the benefit of revised pension from 1.1.96 and the respondents have rightly fixed his pension with reference to the date of absorption of the applicant in ESIC and the payment of lumpsum amount has been made to him accordingly in terms of clause 3(a) (ii) of letter dated 10.4.1997. 3. It would be useless to remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction that O.A. No. 1885/1999 be re-decided after hearing the parties and a reasoned decision to follow, for the reason the issue can be decided by us inasmuch as no adjudication of fact is required. Only a legal issue arises for consideration. 4. The writ petitioner was an employee of the Union and was working in the office of the Accountant General till when he appli.ed for a job with Employees State Insurance Corporation. 5. Being selected by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, petitioner had to tender a technical resignation, which he did on January 28, 1992 and was immediately relieved by the Union of India to enable him to join Employees State Insurance Corporation. 6. Since the service rendered by the petitioner under the Union of India was a pensionable service he was entitled to receive pension as per Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 7. Two options were open to the petitioner. He could opt to receive a monthly pension or he could opt for the entire pension to be commuted. He opted for the latter. 8. For reasons unknown, but known only to the petitioner, after joining Employees State Insurance Corporation, he made a request to the Union of India through the Office of Accountant General that his technical resignation submitted be permitted to be withdrawn by him. He opted for the latter. 8. For reasons unknown, but known only to the petitioner, after joining Employees State Insurance Corporation, he made a request to the Union of India through the Office of Accountant General that his technical resignation submitted be permitted to be withdrawn by him. 9. It appears that the petitioner did so for the reason he wanted to test the working conditions at Employees State Insurance Corporation; and if not to his liking, to revert back to the parent organization. The request to withdraw the technical resignation was withdrawn. 10. He filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh challenging the decision not to permit him to withdraw his technical resignation which was dismissed in default. 11. By the time the year 1997 had come into being. 12. Since January, 1992, after he had resigned from the Union of India and had joined Employees State Insurance Corporation, the petitioner had been working with the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 13. All these years, the petitioner took no steps to complete the codal formalities for the commuted pension which he had desired to be paid to him to be computed and cheque handed over. He completed the formalities by March, 1997 and as a consequence on April 10, 1997 necessary orders were issued requiring commuted pension to be paid to the petitioner w.e.f. January 28, 1992 i.e. the date when he resigned from the office of the Accountant General. The necessary cheque was prepared and payment tendered to the petitioner which he accepted and thereafter he started raising an issue. 14. Now, as is known to one and all, pension is computed with reference to the last drawn salary in the scale applicable, and in the facts of the instant case it was the salary being paid to the petitioner when he resigned on January 28, 1992. He started claiming that since the matter had lingered on till when order dated April 10, 1997 was passed and in the meanwhile, with retrospective effect from January 01, 1996, when the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government in the year 1998, a pay revision had taken place, the commuted pension payable to him should be determined with reference to the replacement scale which had come into effect from January 1, 1996. 15. 15. The answer to the claim of the petitioner is simple. 16. He had resigned on January 28, 1992. Notwithstanding the matter pertaining to disbursement of his pension being delayed till when the order dated April 10, 1997 was passed, pension had to be computed and paid to the petitioner with reference to the pay scale in which he was drawing his salary and the last salary paid as of January 28, 1992. 17. We may highlight at this stage that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the late disbursement of his pension and for which the relevant facts have been noted by us hereinabove. 18. Those who have their pension commuted are not entitled to the benefit of pension payable with reference to replacement scales. Had the petitioner desired to be paid a monthly pension, the matter would have been entirely different; for then, w.e.f. January 01, 1996 the revised pension had to be fixed keeping in view the replacement scale. But not for those who opt for 100% pension commuted prior to January 01, 1996 upon resigning from Government service. We find no merit in the claim raised by the petitioner and thus we dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing any cost.