ORDER 1. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Retired Officials’ Association, Madras, seeking the direction of this Court to the Government of Tamil Nadu to allow encashment of earned leave on the date of superannuation in full without deduction of the pension and pension equivalent of the Death-cum-retirement gratuity, hereinafter referred to as DCRG, to the State Government servants who retired during the period from 8.5.1971 to 13.6.1974 and from 17.9.1975 to 30.9.1978. This, in short, is the case of the petitioner. The prayer is for a mandamus to the above effect. 2. Before I deal with the points raised in the writ petition, it is neccessary for me to provide the background leading to this writ petition. Then 1 will address myself to the arguments. The Second Pay Commission made certain recommendations in regard to leave benefits to Government servants. Those recommendations were examined by the Government and in G.O.Ms.No.226, Finance, dated 8.2.1971, the following order was passed: “The Second Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has made certain recommendations in regard to the leave benefits of the Government servants. Government have examined the recommendations made by the Pay Commission and pass the following orders: (i) Surrender and Encashment of leave:” According to G.O.Ms.No.783, finance, dated 10th September, 1968, all Government servants (gazetted and non-gazetted) who take earned leave for a period of not less than 30 days have been allowed to surrender the balance of the earned leave to their credit on the date of commencement of the leave or any portion thereof at their option subject to a maximum of 30 days. They are sanctioned leave salary and allowances for the leave so surrendered. The interval between two such surrenders of earned leave should not be less than 24 months. The Pay Commission has suggested that encashment of leave should be allowed only if it is coupled with actual utilisation and that the Government servants both gazetted and non-gazetted may be allowed to surrender 15 days of earned leave in a year in lieu of leave salary and allowances if they actually go on leave for a period of 15 days, the interval between two such surrenders being not less than 12 months…..” This recommendation of the Pay Commission was accepted by the Government in the G.O. referred to just now. 3. 3. As regards refused leave, the Government again accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission and directed that all the Government servants may be permitted to encash the earned leave at their credit, on the date of superannuation, subject to a maximum of 120 days by the authority sanctioning the pension and that the Government servants shall be paid leave salary less pension and pension equivalent of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity for this period. (Underlined supplied). 4. Thereafter, availing of 180 days of earned leave at any one time came up for decision. The Government, by G.O.Ms. No.444, Finance, (F.F.11), dated 30.3.1974, accepted the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Joint Council and permitted the Government servants in superior service to avail of earned leave upto a maximum of 180 days, at any one time, instead of 120 days. 5. On 14.6.1974, G.O.Ms.No.837, Finance, (F.R.II) was passed to the following effect: “Read - the following papers: 1. G.O.Ms.No.226, Finance dated 8th February, 1971. 2. From the Secretariat Association representation, dated 18th March, 1974. 3. G.O.Ms.No.444, Finance, dated 30th Varch, 1974. ORDER 1. According to the orders issued in the G.O. first cited, the leave salary for encashment of leave on the date of superannuation shall be reduced by pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity for the period. The Tamil Nadu Secretariat Association in their representation, dated 18th March, 1974, has requested that the leave salary for the encashment leave may be paid in full without making any deductions. 2. The Government after careful consideration have decided to concede the request of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Association and they accordingly direct that the leave salary be paid in full without any deductions towards pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity. The above orders will also apply in the case of encashment of leave at the credit of Government servants who die while in service. 3. These orders shall take effect from the date of issue of this order. 4. Necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules and Fundamental Rules will be issued separately.” It may be seen by a reading of the above that the leave salary was directed to be paid in full without any deduction towards pension or pension equivalent of DCHC and the orders were to apply in the case of encashment of leave at the credit of Government servants who die in harness. 6. 6. Thereafter, revised orders were issued with regard to encashment of leave on superannuation. That was G.O.Ms.No.881, Finance (F.R.II), dated 17.9.1975. That requires to be extracted in full and, therefore, I do so. “Read: 1. G.O.Ms.No.226, Finance dt. 8.2.1971. 2. G.O.Ms.No.837, Finance dt. 14.6.1974. 3. From the Accountant General, Madras, Lr.No.TM-1/10/69-337 dated 4.9.1974. ORDER “According to the orders in the Government order first cited, the quantum of leave salary for the encashment of leave on the date of superannuation shall be reduced by pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity, for the period. Subsequently, the Government ordered in the reference second cited that leave salary be paid in full without any deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity. 2. On receipt of the orders, the Accountant-General, Madras, has raised the following points: (i) Under G.O. dated 14.6.1974, leave salary for leave encashed is freed from deductions on account of pension equivalent of gratuity, which would mean that both leave salary and pension would be paid for the same notional period. Deductions of pension equivalent of gratuity are provided for in recognition of the principle that while on leave, the sum total of benefits due and receivable should be restricted to the leave salary payable. In other words, during a given period, if a service payment and a past service payment (retirement benefits) are to be paid concurrently and together the former should be suitably reduced by the amount due for repayment for the latter. (ii) In case of Government servant to whom leave has been refused on administrative grounds and who is permitted to avail of the leave after the date of superannuation he gets leave salary after deducting pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity. (ii) In case of Government servant to whom leave has been refused on administrative grounds and who is permitted to avail of the leave after the date of superannuation he gets leave salary after deducting pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity. Even in the case of officers on re-employment salary less pension and pension equivalent of D.C.R.G. alone is allowed, so that total emoluments plus pension and pension equivalent of D.C.R.G. does not exceed pay last drawn.” In view of the objections raised by the Accountant-General, Madras, the Government directed that the quantum of leave salary for the leave surrendered on the date of superannuation be restricted to leave salary less pension and pension equivalent of death-cum-retirement gratuity in cancellation of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.837, Finance, dated 14.6.74.” Then a memorandum was issued on a consideration of all the Government orders referred to above, under which it was directed that in the cases of Government servants, who retired between 14.6.1974 and 16.9.1975, the amounts already deducted towards pension and pension equivalent of DCRG from leave salary for encashment of earned leave on the date of superannuation be refunded to the individuals concerned. Then, a clarification was issued under G.O.Ms.No.393, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.II) dated 26.3.1979 to the effect that the leave salary for the earned leave surrendered by a Government servant, who retires, otherwise than as a measure of punishment, need not be subjected to any deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of the DCRG. This order was to come into force on 26.3.1979. Then came the question of giving retrospective effect from 1.10.1978. Those Government servants who retired prior to 26.3.1979 made representations to the Government for giving effect to the orders concerning payment of leave salary of the retired Government servants without deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of gratuity from the date of the order, viz., 26.3.1979, retrospectively from 1.10.1978. The Government directed in G.O.Ms.No.1019, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.II) dated 5.9.1979 that the concession of encashment of earned leave without deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of gratuity should be extended to the Government servants who have retired from 1.10.1978 itself. Accordingly, the previous order stood modified. It is in this background, the argument is advanced by Mr. The Government directed in G.O.Ms.No.1019, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.II) dated 5.9.1979 that the concession of encashment of earned leave without deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of gratuity should be extended to the Government servants who have retired from 1.10.1978 itself. Accordingly, the previous order stood modified. It is in this background, the argument is advanced by Mr. R. Gane-san, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government had created two classes of pensioners, viz., (1) those who retired before a particular period and (2) those who retired after that. In other words, the Government servants who retired during 14.6.1974 to 16.9.1975 and after 1.10.1978 were made eligible for leave salary without deduction of pension. On the contrary, those who retired during the period from 8.2.1971 to 13.6.1974 and 17.9.1975 to 30.9.1978 have been denied the above benefit. This is clearly violative of “equality before law” enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. Pension is not a bounty but a compensation From 8.2.1971, the pensioners were allowed to enjoy the leave salary. There is no justification for deducting the leave salary towards pension in the case of certain Government servants on the sole ground that they retired before a particular date. This differentiation affects the vested rights of the pensioners. The last of the arguments advanced is that this is the benefit accrued to the pensioners during their tenure of service. The same has nothing to do with the pension. Therefore, there is no justification for deducting the leave salary on superannuation from pension and pension equivalent of DCRG. In support of this argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision reported in D. Syed IIyas v. State of Karnataka D. Syed IIyas v. State of Karnataka (1985) Lab.I.C.1518 and in particular the observations contained in paragraphs 9 and 10. Therefore, he pleads that the writ petition may be allowed. 8. Learned Additional Government Pleader, in opposing the stand of the petitioner, would urge as under. The encashment of the earned leave at credit is a concession extended to retiring Government servants. Therefore, the contention that it has nothing to do with the pension is not correct. 9. With effect from 14.6.1974, the Government servants, on retirement, were allowed encashment of earned leave without any deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of DCRG as per G.O.Ms.No.837, Finance (F.R.II) dated 14.6.1974. Therefore, the contention that it has nothing to do with the pension is not correct. 9. With effect from 14.6.1974, the Government servants, on retirement, were allowed encashment of earned leave without any deduction towards pension and pension equivalent of DCRG as per G.O.Ms.No.837, Finance (F.R.II) dated 14.6.1974. Objections were raised by the Accountant-General that it may amount to double payment. Orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.881, Finance (F.R.II) dated 17.9.1975 for deducting the pension and pension equivalent of DCRG. When recovery was sought to be made, objections were raised against that recovery and therefore, it came to be waived. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government of India themselves have extended the benefit of encashment of earned leave at the time of retirement without deducting the pension and pension equivalent of DCRG with effect from 30.9.1977. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu extended the same benefit at the time of the retirement. The Third Pay Commission did not recommend the proposal of extension of the benefit to the Government employees as it would in turn spoil their health as they would not go on leave due to this benefit. It was because of this, G.O.Ms.No.393, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.II), dated 26.3.1979 came to be passed and later on retrospective effect was given from 1.10.1978 in G.O.Ms.No.1019, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.II), dated 5.9.1979. 10. There were no orders for encashment of earned leave at the time of retirement without deduction of pension and pension equivalent of DCRG from 8.2.1971 to 13.6.1974 and from 17.9.1975 to 30.9.1978. The cut-off date of 1.10.1978 came to be arrived at as otherwise it would result in lot of inconvenience. The petitioner cannot claim encashment of earned leave, which is a concession, to be given retrospectively. The same cannot be claimed as of right. There is no discrimination as alleged by the petitioner. 11. I will now refer to rule 86(a) of the Fundamental Rules and the note and the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules. Rule 86 of the Fundamental Rules and the note are as under: “86. (a) Leave at the credit of a Government servant in his leave account other than earned leave shall lapse on the date of retirement or on the date of termination of the extension of service. Rule 86 of the Fundamental Rules and the note are as under: “86. (a) Leave at the credit of a Government servant in his leave account other than earned leave shall lapse on the date of retirement or on the date of termination of the extension of service. The competent authority (lease sanctioning authority) shall suo motu sanction, without waiting for the formal application from the Government servant concerned the encashment of earned leave at the credit of a Government servant on the date of retirement or on the date of termination of the extension of service, subject to a maximum of 180 days. Note: Leave which is not preparatory to retirement and which is refused by the competent authority in the interest of public service will not entitle an officer to the production of rule 86, after the date of superannuation.” Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules reads as follows: “8. A permanent Government servant in superior service shall earn leave at the rate of one-eleventh i the period spent on duty, provided that he shall cease to earn leave while he has to his credit such leave amounting to 180 days.” These, by themselves, are not of much assistance because F.N.86 merely is an enabling provision for encashment of earned leave. It requires to be carefully noted that deduction of pension equivalent of DCRG is provided for in recognition of the principle that while on leave, the sum total of the benefits due and receivable should be restricted to the salary payable. In other words, during a given period, if a service payment and a past service payment, viz., retirement benefits are to be paid concurrently, the service payment should be suitably reduced by the amount due for repayment for the past service payment. 12. with regard to those Government servants for whom the leave has been refused on administrative grounds and who are permitted to avail of the leave after the date of superannuation, they get the leave salary after deducting pension and pension equivalent to DCRG. Even in the case of officers on re-employment, salary less pension and pension equivalent of DCRG alone is allowed, so that the total emoluments plus pension and pension equivalent of DCRG does not exceed the last drawn pay. These were the objections taken by the Accountant-General. Even in the case of officers on re-employment, salary less pension and pension equivalent of DCRG alone is allowed, so that the total emoluments plus pension and pension equivalent of DCRG does not exceed the last drawn pay. These were the objections taken by the Accountant-General. For my part, I am unable to see how these objections could be held to be untenable. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the benefit of encashment of earned leave at the time of the retirement itself is a concession to the Government servants. On the contrary, if these were to go in for the purpose of computation of pension, it would amount to a double payment. It is for this reason the various instructions, which I have elaborately quoted, have come to be issued. It also requires to be noted that there were no orders for encashment of earned leave at the time of retirement without deduction of pension and pension equivalent of DCRG between the crucial dates, viz., from 8.2.1971 to 13.6.1974 and from 17.9.1975 to 30.9.1978. It was on this ground that the request of the petitioner came to be rejected. In D. Syed IIyas v. State of Karnataka Syed IIyas v. State of Karnataka (1985) Lab. I.C 1518 the following observations are found in paragraphs 9 and 10: “9. It is true that the District Health and Family Welfare Officer has stated that the earned leave for 120 days for encashment of leave salary benefit was sanctioned to the petitioner was retired from service from 30th June, 1984 though what was actally sanctioned was the encashment of leave and not leave. The O.M. itself indicates that the petitioner retired from 30th June, 1984, which means that the petitioner was not in service on and after that date. 10. It is also pertinent to point out that there is no difference between a civil servant who secured the encashment of leave to his credit on the date of his retirement and another, who retired on the same date without encashment of leave. 10. It is also pertinent to point out that there is no difference between a civil servant who secured the encashment of leave to his credit on the date of his retirement and another, who retired on the same date without encashment of leave. In both the cases, there is severance of relationship of master and servant between the employee and the Government.” But this case is clearly distinguishable, because the question that arose was, whether the encashment of leave standing to the credit of a civil servant on the date of his retirement would amount to extension of service equivalent to the period of leave permitted to be encashed. The learned Judge held that encashment of leave cannot be equated to refused leave sanctioned after superannuation. It was further observed that the provision for encashment of leave enables a civil servant to secure pecuniary benefit equal to the salary for the period of leave which stands to his credit as on the date of retirement and it does not have the effect of continuation of service after the date of retirement. To this proposition, there could be no demur. But the position here is entirely different and I am of the view that the objections raised by the Accountant-General, which came to be accepted by the Government, are sound. Accordingly, I hold that there are no merits in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.