K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AS on 1-11 1956, the petitioner was working as a First Division Clerk in the public Works Department of the erstwhile state of Mysore and stood allotted in that capacity to the new State of Mysore now called as "karnataka'. In the final interstate seniority list of the department, the post held by the petitioner has been equated to the cadre of First Division Clerks and the rank due to him on the basis of his continuous officiation in the equated cadre has been assigned to him. ( 2 ) BEFORE the final inter-state seniority list was finalised, the petitioner was actually promoted on 12 10 1966 as a First grade Superintendent in which capacity he continued to serve till 5-12-1973, on which day he retired from service on attaining superannuation. ( 3 ) IN the review of promotions undertaken by the department on the basis of an earlier inter-state seniority list, the petitioner was given the date of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of First Grade superintendent as 6 10 1960 (vide Official memorandum No. EST (7) ISS/review/ 73-74 dated 25/27-9-1973) Ext. A ). But, in a later review of promotions made on 26-6-1977 on the basis of a revised interstate seniority list, the petitioner is deemed to have been promoted as a First Grade superintendent on 31 6-1967. ( 4 ) ON the petitioner retiring from service, the authorities provisionally or on ad hoc basis fixed his pension at Rs. 159 per month without making payment of the death-cum-retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as DCRG) payable under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the KCSR ). ( 5 ) WHILE the petitioner was claiming for enhancement of pension and payment of the DCRG due to him, the Chief Engineer in his letter No. EST 10 PEN. DEC 5/73-74 dated 10/11-4-1978 (Ext. D) informed the Accountant General that the pension fixed at Rs. 159 per month was erroneous and the same should be fixed at rs. 153 per month and on that basis the excess pension of Rs. 6 per month paid to the petitioner from 5 12 1973 should be recovered from him by adjusting the same in the DCRG payable to him. 159 per month was erroneous and the same should be fixed at rs. 153 per month and on that basis the excess pension of Rs. 6 per month paid to the petitioner from 5 12 1973 should be recovered from him by adjusting the same in the DCRG payable to him. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said communication and has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to fix his pension and make payment of the DCRG due to him. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has urged that the impugned communication is violative of the principles of natural justice and the rules governing payment of pension and dcrg. ( 7 ) IN their joint return, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on 12-10 1966 and on the ranking assigned to him in the revised final Inter-state seniority list, he would have earned his promotion to the cadre of First Grade Superintendent only on 31 -5-1967. On this basis, the respondents claim that the petitioner is entitled for a pension of Rs. 153 and the excess drawn by him requires to be adjusted out of the DCRG payable to him. ( 8 ) SRI Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned communication without affording an opportunity to his client to state his case is violative of the principles of natural justice and is illegal. ( 9 ) SRI B. B. Mandappa, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, justified the impugned communication. ( 10 ) IN his petition, the petitioner has asserted that before addressing the impugned communication, which undoubtedly results in civil consequences to him, the chief Engineer had not issued a show cause notice and had not afforded him an opportunity to state his case, which is not denied by the respondents. In this view, the assertion of the petitioner that the impugned communication is violative f the principle of audi alteram partem has necessarily to be accepted and the same invalidated on that ground. ( 11 ) SECONDLY, an examination of the communication shows that the same has been made without issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case. In this view also, the order of the Chief Engineer is liable to be quashed. ( 11 ) SECONDLY, an examination of the communication shows that the same has been made without issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case. In this view also, the order of the Chief Engineer is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) SRI Jois next contends that in determining the pension, the Chief Engineer was bound to regulate the same on the basis of the actual date of promotion or earlier deemed date of promotion only. ( 13 ) SRI Mandappa contends that the petitioner has been given a deemed date of promotion as on 31-5-1967 and the same should alone be reckoned for purpose of pension and DCRG under the Karnataka state Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 14 ) ON the facts of this case, it is not very necessary to examine and decide whether the second review was justified and whether the petitioner has been correctly given a deemed date of promotion as on 31-5-1967. Sri Jois states that in view of the retirement of the petitioner as early as on 5 12 1973, his client is not keen on joining issue with the respondents on that question. Hence, the same is not examined and decided. ( 15 ) AS seen earlier, the petitioner was actually promoted on 12-10-1966 and he continued to hold the said post till he retired from service. In settling the pension and the DCRG, the respondents cannot ignore the above facts. Pension is sanctioned to a civil servant for the actual service rendered by him. A pension which is not a bounty is paid to a civil servant for the earlier service rendered by him. The provisions regulating pension in the KCSR do not empower the authorities to ignore the actual service rendered by a civil servant and regulate the same on the basis of notional or unreal state of facts. The Act, while denying arrears of salary in cases of deemed dates of promotions, does not provide for overlooking actual promotions and actual service rendered by a civil servant for purpose of pension. On the other hand, the Act takes special care to accord the pension that is legitimately due to a civil servant. A notional promotion, if beneficial, is required to be taken into consideration for regulating pension. On the other hand, the Act takes special care to accord the pension that is legitimately due to a civil servant. A notional promotion, if beneficial, is required to be taken into consideration for regulating pension. But, the Act does not say or provide that an actual promotion made and the actual service rendered by a civil servant, if beneficial, should be ignored and the same regulated on notional or unreal circumstances. From this it follows that the chief Engineer could not have regulated the pension and the DCRG due to the petitioner on the deemed date of promotion given in the second review of promotions. In this view, the respondents are bound to regulate the pension and DCRG payable to the petitioner by reckoning the service rendered by him as Superintendent from 12-10-1966 and not from 31-5-1967 as decided in the impugned communication. ( 16 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions : (A) I quash the impugned communication No. EST. 10 PEN DEC. 5/73-74 dated 10/11 4 1978 addressed by the chief Engineer to the Accountant general, Karnataka, Bangalore (Ext. D ). (b) I direct the respondent to determine the pension payable to the petitioner reckoning his service in the cadre of Superintendent from 12-10-1966 and not from 31 5-1967 and make him available the arrears of pension that may be found due as also the death cumretirement gratuity due thereto on that basis with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and in any event, within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. But, till the matters are re- determined, the respondents shall continue to pay a sum of Rs. 159 p. m. as pension to the petitioner. ( 17 ) RULE issued is made absolute with costs. Advacate's fee Rs. 100. ( 18 ) LET a copy of this order be communicated to the respondents within two weeks from this day. --- *** --- .