JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. - This petition shows a sorry state of affairs to which a pensioner some times is subject to. The Petitioner was appointed as a trained compounder (later on designated as Pharmacist) which with effect from 15-5-59 in Zila Parishad dispensary Harayya District Basti. There the age of superannuation was sixty years and it could be extended for two years. 2. The Petitioner's further case was that on 18-5-72 when he attained the age of superannuation he was given one year's extension by Zila Parishad till 17-5-73 and again for one year from 18-5-73 to 15-5-74. 3. It so happened that by G.O. dated 13-3-73 this dispensary was taken over by Government with effect from 1-4-73 and ail employees of Zila Parishad who were in service on the appointed date became government servants. The Petitioner, therefore, claimed pension from Govt. after his retirement on 17-5-74, but more than 8 years have passed and this case has not yet been finalised. 4. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit but learned Standing Counsel has argued on the material supplied by Petitioner himself. 5. The controversy is about second extension. The case of opp. party No. 1 the State of U.P. is that second extension was granted by Zila Parishad without any authority for at that time the dispensary had already been taken over by Government. 6. There is two fold submission to this objection of State. One is that though the G.O. by which the dispensary was taken over by Government is dated 13-2-73 and it was to be effective from 1-4-73, it was actually received in the office of C.M.O. Basti in June, 1973 and so before that Zila Parishad in fact continued to administer it and as such was competent to grant extension before this date. Secondly it was contended that Govt. after all continued to take work from the Petitioner till he attained the age of 62 years and paid him his salary and so impliedly acquiesced in the extension of the service as Petitioner till that age. 7. Both these contentions have a force. An order does not become effective until it is communicated vide State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313 . 7. Both these contentions have a force. An order does not become effective until it is communicated vide State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313 . This is not disputed that until 7-6-73, this order did not reach the office of C.M.O. Basti Therefore, the dispensary was on point of fact not taken over till that date i.e. 18-5-73 by Government when second extension was granted. The Zila Parishad, therefore, which was administering the dispensary was competent to grant extension. 8. About second contention also it is not disputed that State took work from the Petitioner till he attained the age of 62 years. The State is, therefore, estopped from challenging the legality of his extension till that age. It is really unfair on their part to do so. 9. In any case, the matter was not such as raised any complicated question of fact or law, so the State should not have taken so much time in deciding it. The State owes a public duty to finalise the pension matter of its employees before the date of retirement and in any case within a reasonable time, so that when they retire, they can plan their life. They are already without job and short of official status, they cannot get things done easily. Some time even petty employees harass them. So not to give them their pension for a petty matter and that too for such a long term hardly shows credit to the welfare State. 10. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite party No. 1 the State of U.P. to regularise the services of the Petitioner upto the age of 62 years within two months from the date of this order.