(1.) UPON hearing learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant and having perused the record of the writ petition and the letters patent appeal, the court did ask learned counsel, if the petitioner -appellant was really serious about chasing his claim for commuting the pension after having enjoyed receipt of the pension for 20 years, which today makes him approximately 78 years of age. The petitioner -appellant now desires that for all the delay which may have been taken by the State -respondents in considering his request for commuting his pension, the request should be considered now. The delay has been noticed by the learned judge on the writ petition that this was not such a straight case in which commutation could have been considered for the asking.
(2.) THE ridiculous part is that if pension is to be commuted now the period would end when the petitioner -appellant would be approximately 94. years of age. It is submitted before the court that equity is in favour of the petitioner -appellant and the court is being indicated that the liberalized pension scheme permits commutation, notwithstanding that the period has not been indicated as to when a pensioner may be stopped from making his request.
(3.) THE court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the leamed Judge.