ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - a) For issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Commutation Pension Order dated 21.12.15, whereby and whereunder the deduction of monthly installments towards commutation of Pension has been made w.e.f. 09.07.11, by the Respondent although the disbursement of the commuted amount of Pension was made on 25.01.16; b) For issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund retrospectively the deducted amount (installments) of Commutation of Pension with interest and re-fix the installments on the amount i.e. Rs.4,36,230/- only which has actually been received by the petitioner towards the commutation of pension; c) For issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the retiral benefits such as G.P.F., Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. which was withheld for more than 5 ½ years without any basis; d) As an alternative prayer for issuance of an appropriate Writ /Order or Direction for rescinding the commutation of Pension Order dated 21.12.15 as the petitioner is ready and willing to return the commuted amount paid to him pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2015 with a further direction upon the respondents to also return / refund the deductions made towards installments of commutation of pension and also to restore the full pension w.e.f. the date of retirement. 2. The petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.07.2010 as Deputy Director (Empoyment), Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. Despite submitting Pension Form – 4 on 28.07.2010, petitioner did not receive his pension and other retiral dues in time. Six months prior to his retirement, petitioner was issued a letter dated 14.02.2009, asking him to deposit Rs.36,71,933/- , stating that he had illegally appointed seven persons for which department had suffered loss. Petitioner was again served with a letter dated 28.05.2009 asking him to deposit Rs.36,71,933/- and another letter on the same date wherein he was asked to submit the documents/orders by which the appointments were made. Petitioner replied to both the letters. Thereafter the respondents kept mum over the issue, but as the petitioner did not receive a single penny towards his retirement benefits, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3095 of 2011. Petitioner replied to both the letters. Thereafter the respondents kept mum over the issue, but as the petitioner did not receive a single penny towards his retirement benefits, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3095 of 2011. In the said case, while quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2009 and order dated 28.05.2009, the respondents were directed to take a decision on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules within a period of 12 weeks. The petitioner, vide letter dated 21.03.2014, submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. The respondents, pursuant to the directions passed in W.P.(S) No.3095 of 2011, vide Office Order No.15 dated 02.09.2015 as contained in Memo No.1921 dated 02.09.2015 took a decision in light of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules that after deducting the amount of salary etc. paid to the said illegally appointed employees from 03.01.1992 till 07.07.1992, the retiral dues shall be paid to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner in this writ petition that the commuted value of pension of the petitioner was Rs.9,62,041/-, which was sanctioned on 21.12.2015, but the same was paid to the petitioner on 25.01.2016. Further, at the same time, Rs.5,25,811/- was recovered from the payments on the same day as arrears of the EMI from the date of sanction, i.e., 09.07.2011 @ 9784/- per month. Thus, the petitioner received only Rs.4,36,230/- instead of Rs.9,62,041/- which was sanctioned to the petitioner. Further, the earned leave of the petitioner has been paid after a delay of more than 5 ½ years. The petitioner had made representation before the respondents vide letter dated 24.02.2016, but nothing has been done on the same. Aforesaid is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges of illegally appointing seven persons in 1995 itself. There were no departmental proceedings and/or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Aforesaid is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges of illegally appointing seven persons in 1995 itself. There were no departmental proceedings and/or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. He contended that the respondents are liable to refund the deducted amount (installments) of commutation of pension with interest and re-fix the installments on the amount i.e. Rs.4,36,230/- only which has actually been received by the petitioner towards the commutation of pension as the commuted value of pension of Rs.9,62,041/- was sanctioned on 21.12.2015 w.e.f. 09.07.2011, but the same was paid on 25.01.2016, however, at the time of payment, an amount of Rs.5,25,811/- was recovered on the same day as arrear of the EMI from the date of sanction i.e., 09.07.2011 @ Rs.9784/- per month and thus, the petitioner received only 4,36,230/-, the net amount on the date of receipt of commuted value of pension instead of Rs.9,62,041/-. He contended that the petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the retiral benefits such as G.P.F., Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. which were withheld for more than 5 ½ years by the respondents without any basis or reason whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the actual disbursement of the pension of the petitioner started from 25.10.2016. Thus, the restoration of the pension will be after 15 years from that date, i.e., some time in the year 2031. He further argued that once the pension is commuted and a lump-sum amount in lieu of such commutation is paid to the petitioner, the monthly pension automatically stands reduced. This reduced pension is paid till 15 years, thereafter the original pension is restored. In this case, the petitioner received full pension till he received the lump-sum value of the commutation. Once the petitioner received the lump-sum value, the proportionate amount of full pension, which he had received, was obviously deducted from the lump-sum value. This is the amount, which the petitioner is seeking for refund, which he is not entitled to. Learned counsel further argued that if the amount is disbursed to the petitioner, he will get the double benefit, as the 15 years period from the date of actual commutation will not be completed in 2031. This is the amount, which the petitioner is seeking for refund, which he is not entitled to. Learned counsel further argued that if the amount is disbursed to the petitioner, he will get the double benefit, as the 15 years period from the date of actual commutation will not be completed in 2031. He argued that in view of the aforesaid legal position, the Government has rightly deducted the said amount. 5. From the contentions and arguments of the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the total commuted value of petitioner’s pension is Rs.9,62,041/-. An amount of Rs.5,25,811/- was deducted from the aforesaid amount and the petitioner had received only Rs.4,36,230/-. 6. Rule 256 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules provides that if the commuted portion of the pension is drawn after the date on which the commutation became absolute, the amount drawn shall be deducted from the amount payable in commutation. Further, as per Rule 259 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the portion of the pension commuted, cannot be restored on refund of its capitalized value. Rules 256 and 259 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules read as under:- 256. Payment of commuted value shall be made as expeditiously as possible but whatever the date of actual payment, the amount paid and the effect upon the pension shall be the same as if the commuted value were paid on the date on which commutation became absolute. If the commuted portion of the pension has been drawn after the date on which the commutation became absolute, the amount drawn shall be deducted from the amount payable in commutation. 259. A commutation once applied for, sanctioned and given effect to cannot be rescinded i.e., the portion of a pension commuted cannot be restored on refund of its capitalized value. 7. It is well settled that after 15 years, original pension has to be restored. The reduction of pension on account of commutation takes place only after the lump-sum commuted amount is paid. It is discontinued after the commuted amount with notional interest is adjusted by the portion of pension, which was not actually paid monthly in lieu of commutation. 8. In this case, the pension commutation order is dated 21.10.2015. The lump-sum amount, which the petitioner was entitled to get was Rs.9,62,041/-, but he had received full pension till the aforesaid date. It is discontinued after the commuted amount with notional interest is adjusted by the portion of pension, which was not actually paid monthly in lieu of commutation. 8. In this case, the pension commutation order is dated 21.10.2015. The lump-sum amount, which the petitioner was entitled to get was Rs.9,62,041/-, but he had received full pension till the aforesaid date. There was no deduction made from the pension of the petitioner, which ought to have been made if the entire amount of Rs.9,62,041/- was paid to the petitioner. Thus, the excess amount of pension, considering the lump-sum commuted value on monthly basis needs to be deducted, which has been done in the instant case. In the instant case, if the arguments of the petitioner is accepted that he is entitled to refund of Rs.5,25,811/-, then it will amount to giving undue double benefit to the petitioner and the same will amount to unjust enrichment, as he would, on one hand, have received the full pension without considering the commutation and on the other, he will receive the lump-sum value on his commutation also. Thus, I find that the respondents have correctly deducted the amount from the commuted value of pension of the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been observed and held above, there is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, so far as interest on delayed payment of other retiral benefits is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority concerned. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.