As per case facts, Central Government servants who were absorbed into public undertakings were denied the restoration of one-third of their fully commuted pension after a specified period, a benefit ... that was granted to other pensioners following the 'Common Cause' case. This denial was based on a specific Office Memorandum issued by the Government. The petitioners contended that this discrimination was unjustified, especially since they had also commuted their pension and the lump sum amount was typically recovered within a reasonable timeframe. The question arose whether the denial of restoration of one-third commuted pension to these absorbed government servants, who had commuted their pension upon absorption, was justified, especially given the precedent set by the 'Common Cause' case which allowed similar restoration for other pensioners. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as given in the 'Common Cause' case regarding the restoration of one-third commuted pension. The Court found the government's distinction between the petitioners and those in the 'Common Cause' case to be incorrect and the denial of benefits to violate constitutional principles, thus quashing the impugned paragraph of the Office Memorandum dated 5.3.1987, which had denied this benefit to the absorbed employees.