ORDER C.P. Singh, C.J.- l. This revision is directed against an order dated 6th February 1982 passed by the First Civil Judge Class II. Durg, holding that the decree passed on 8th March 1980 declaring the plaintiff entitled to pension of Rs 176/- per month and dearness allowance as also gratuity amounting to Rs. 5,980/- was void being without jurisdiction. The said decree is also for injunction. 2. The plaintiff decree - holder, who is the applicant in this revision, retirel as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 17th September 1975. The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, sanctioned the pension of the applicant at Rs. 176/- per month and gratuity of Rs. 5,980/-. The pension and gratuity were not paid to the applicant. The applicant then filed the suit in which the aforesaid decree was passed. It was held on merits that the applicant was entitled to pension of Rs.176/- per month and dearness allowance as also gratuity amounting to Rs. 5,980/-. An appeal was filed by the State and other defendants which was dismissed by the District Judge on 17th July 1980. There was also a second appeal which was dismissed in motion on 18th August 1981. I am told that after the decree the applicant was paid Rs. 6104.15. As the full payment of pension and gratuity was not made, the applicant applied for execution. An objection was raised in the executing Court by the State and other non-applicants that the decree was without jurisdiction as a suit for pension and gratuity is not maintainable in the Civil Court having regard to the provisions of section 4 of the Pensions Ad, 1871. This objection has been allowed by the executing Court and it has been held that the decree is a nullity. The executing Court has relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Rajaram Bichariya S.A. No. 947 of 1972, Decided on the 17th July 1980. 3. It seems rather strange as to why the State should take such an objection. After all the applicant retired from service in September 1975 and he was entitled to pension whether at the rate of Rs. 176/- per month or at a lower rate. Pension of Rs. 176/- per month these days is wholly inadequate for maintenance. 3. It seems rather strange as to why the State should take such an objection. After all the applicant retired from service in September 1975 and he was entitled to pension whether at the rate of Rs. 176/- per month or at a lower rate. Pension of Rs. 176/- per month these days is wholly inadequate for maintenance. After the suit was decreed on merits in spite of it being contested by the State and after the decree was confirmed in appeal and in second appeal, it ought to have been obeyed and the applicant should have been paid his arrears of pension and gratuity. The executing Court has pointed out that although the applicant after retirement has joined the legal profession but he is not doing well as his eyesight is weak and he has recently undergone some operation. The executing Court has drawn the attention of the Government to the pitiable condition of the applicant and has recommended that his case be dealt with humanely and not legally. In spite of these pertinent remarks the case is not being dealt with humanely by the Government and the applicant is being deprived of his pension. The officers who deal with pension cases on the executive side very often forget that every officer has to retire some day and become dependant on pension only. 4. Coming to the question of jurisdiction, in the case of Rajaran Richariya the objection as to jurisdiction of the civil Court was taken in the suit itself and it was held that the suit for recovery of gratuity and pension was not maintainable in view of section 4 of the Pensions Act. This case is not applicable for two reasons. Firstly no objection as to jurisdiction was taken in the instant case in the suit and the question whether a decree for pension passed by a civil Court when no objection as to jurisdiction is taken in the suit would be a nullity or did not arise for consideration in Rajaram Richariya's case. Firstly no objection as to jurisdiction was taken in the instant case in the suit and the question whether a decree for pension passed by a civil Court when no objection as to jurisdiction is taken in the suit would be a nullity or did not arise for consideration in Rajaram Richariya's case. Secondly, it was also not argued before the Court in Rajaram Richariya's case as is submitted before me, that if section 4 is liberally construed and is held applicable also to pensions which are property and which are paid under statutory provisions, the bar to entertain a civil suit enacted in that section would become arbitrary and would offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench case of Biharilal Suri v. Stale of M.P. 1971 JLJ 436 – 1971 M.P.L.J. 634 on which the State has placed reliance proceeded entirely on the basis that pension and gratuity are merely bounties and a Government servant is not entitled as of right to pension. It was also held that pension does not constitute property under Article 31 or Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. It was on this basis that the Court held that a suit for pension was not maintainable under section 4 of the Pensions Act. The view in Biharilal Sari's case that pension is merely a bounty stands overruled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409 and D.S. Nakera v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 p.136. Pensions which are payable under statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution are received as of right by a pensioner. Such pensions are property under Articles 19 (1) (f) and 300A. In Deokinandan Prasad's case there is no doubt a reference to the Pensions Act and it is said that it may be that under the Pensions Act there is a bar against a Civil court entertaining any suit but this observation cannot be held to be declaration of law that under the changed circumstances when pensions are receivable as of right no suit can be maintained in the civil court. It is now well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids not only unreasonable classification but also arbitrariness (see Ajay Hasis v. Khaliad Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487 , p. 498 Air India vs. Nargesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829 , p. 1848. There is no re1son why when an employee can sue for salary, a pensioner who receives pension as of right under statutory rules should not be allowed to sue for it. Therefore, if section 4 is so construed that it bars the entertainment of suit in respect of those pensions also which are received as of right, the provision itself would become arbitrary and would be hit by Article 14. In my opinion, therefore, the bar of section 4 should be confined by construction to be applicable to pensions which are paid purely as bounty such as political pensions. The section cannot be applied to pensions which are received as of right. Thus, when the civil court entertained the suit filed by the applicant for pension and gratuity and decreed the same, here was no lack of jurisdiction making the decree a nullity. 5. The revision is allowed with casts. The order of the executing Court is set aside. The executing Court is directed to execute the decree in accordance with law. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-.