JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The petitioner, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, i.e. State of U.P. through the Secretary, Local Self Government and the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, to make payment of Dearness Allowance since July 2, 1981 on the pension payable to petitioners as employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad at the equal rate as paid to U.P. Government Pensioners on similar pay scales and similar other admissible emoluments. It has been further prayed that family pension may also be paid to the petitioners at the rate payable to State Government employees retiring after July 1, 1979. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal retired after completing 60 years of age on 12-8-76 as Sahayak Nagar Adhikari, Allahabad, and petitioner No. 2 Shri V.P. Kohli, retired on 1-4-70 after attaining the age of superannuation as Tax Superintendent. Both the petitioners are governed by U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, (for short Rules). Under Rule 3 petitioner No. 1 was as Sahayak Nagar Adhikari at serial No. 2 of U.P. Palika Administrative Superior Services. Whereas petitioner No. 2 was Office Superintendent in the U.P. Palika Ministerial Service. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that they were not getting similar amount as pension and gratuity including D.A. as was payable to the pensioners of State Government corresponding to the last amount of pay which was drawn by the petitioners. The U.P. Palika Centralised Services (Retirement) Benefits Rules, 1981 has been enacted, but nevertheless the benefits as permissible under Part I, Rule 4 dealing with calculation of pension and gratuity, were not being paid to them. It was urged that U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) 1977-78, made a recommendation that U.P. Palika Pensioners must get parity in pension, medical facilities and other relief admissible to employees of State Govt. The State Government took follow up actions and accepted the recommendations of U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) and issued an order dated 28-2-84 recommending that the palika should give the same relief to its pensioners including family pension etc. available to any Government servant drawing similar pay scale immediately before the date of retirement (vide Annexure 6 of the writ petition). available to any Government servant drawing similar pay scale immediately before the date of retirement (vide Annexure 6 of the writ petition). The Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur made an amendment in its Pension Regulations to the effect that since 2-7-81, whatever relief is provided to the State Government pensioners as regards gratuity, D.A. and family pension, would be payable to the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur (vide Annexure 5). There was no reason why should there be any discrimination between the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and those of Kanpur, when both were governed by same enactment, namely U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (for short the Adhiniyam). 3. Sri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika urged that the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad did not have sufficient means for making payment of Dearness Allowance of family pension etc. as employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur have been getting. On account of lack of resources there was inability of respondent No. 2, the Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika to pay the petitioners Dearness Allowance payable on the pension and family pension and other emoluments including gratuity etc. on equal level as U.P. Government employees or those of Nagar Mahapalika. Kanpur are paid 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, the point for determination is as to whether the petitioners, U.P. Centralised Services Employees of Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika can be discriminated against as regards payment of Dearness Allowance admissible on their pension, family pension and other benefits as compared to the employees of State Govt. or those of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. Every Indian citizen has got fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. Life, very often than not, connotes of livelihood or the salary payable to an employee. That means of livelihood does not mean just a means for bare survival rather it includes a right to live with human dignity. 5. In this case the main grievance of the petitioners was in respect of payment of Dearness Allowance on pension payable to them since July 2, 1981 was not similar to those paid to pensioners of U.P. Government or to the pensioners of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. 5. In this case the main grievance of the petitioners was in respect of payment of Dearness Allowance on pension payable to them since July 2, 1981 was not similar to those paid to pensioners of U.P. Government or to the pensioners of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. Even though U.P. Palika Centralised Services (Retirement) Rules, 1981 has been enacted, but nevertheless the benefits admissible under Part I R. 4 are not being paid to them. The pensioners of Nagar Mahapalika either of Kanpur or Allahabad form a class for the purpose of pensionary benefits and there must not be any other classification of pensioners of U.P. Government. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is to be interpreted in the light of expanding horizon of socio-economic justice in a socialist republic and welfare State like ours. There can be no distinction between the employees of one Nagar Mahapalika and another Nagar Mahapalika. Further the pensionary benefits are available to certain employees of State Government who were getting similar pay as the employees of either Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika or the present petitioner. In that event we do not find any rationale in depriving the petitioners from the benefits admissible on pension in the form of Dearness Allowance or family pension or similar other benefits. 6. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 : 1983 Lab IC 1, it was held at page 134 (of AIR : (at p. 5 of Lab IC) as follows : "The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian Territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of difference of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall he treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. 7. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 497, it was held as follows: "It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality." 8. 7. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 497, it was held as follows: "It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality." 8. In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829 : 1981 Lab IC 1313, the Supreme Court formulating propositions emerging from the analysis and examination of earlier decisions held that Article 14 is certainly attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. 9. Applying the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution we are of the view that there must be no discrimination in the matters of pension or Dearness Allowance admissible to pension or family pension etc. in respect of employees drawing similar pay scales at the time of their retirement either they were serving in the Nagar Mahapalika or were serving in the State Government. The reasons underlying the grant of pension have been indicated in D.S. Nakara's case (supra) as old age retirement or disability benefits for the employees and as a social security payment for the just disabled or deceased citizens in accordance with rules governing social service programme of the country. The expression 'socialist' has been intentionally introduced in the preamble in our Constitution by 46th Amendment Act, 1976. The principal aim of a socialist State is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standard of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide decent standard of life to the working people. 10. The expression 'socialist' has been intentionally introduced in the preamble in our Constitution by 46th Amendment Act, 1976. The principal aim of a socialist State is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standard of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide decent standard of life to the working people. 10. It is better to quote relevant portion of para 65 of D.S. Nakara's case (1983 Lab IC 1) (supra), as follows : "With the expanding horizons of socio economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria; 'being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogenous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of 'being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date is unconstitutional and is struck down." 11. In the instant case employees similar to the status and rank of petitioners employed in Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur are getting different Dearness Allowance and family pension etc. and other benefits than the petitioners. Similarly U.P. Government employees are getting different retirement benefits than the petitioners. There is no rationale behind the same. The U.P. Palika Centralised Services (Retirement) Benefits Rules, 1981 have been enacted and it applies to the case of petitioners also as to the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. But nevertheless the benefits as permissible under Part I, Rule 4 dealing with calculation of pension etc. are not being paid to petitioners. Even the U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) 1977-78 made a recommendation that U.P. Palika employees must get parity in pension medical facilities and other reliefs admissible to the employees of State Government. The U.P. Government accepted the recommendation of U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) and directed the Nagar Mahapalikas to give same benefits to its employees in pension etc. Even the U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) 1977-78 made a recommendation that U.P. Palika employees must get parity in pension medical facilities and other reliefs admissible to the employees of State Government. The U.P. Government accepted the recommendation of U.P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) and directed the Nagar Mahapalikas to give same benefits to its employees in pension etc. But we are surprised to notice that the same was not being implemented or paid to employees serving in Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, particularly to the petitioners. Further under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable equally to all employees rendering identical nature of service. By implication in case the petitioners were getting similar amount of pay as employees of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika or as employees of State Government are getting, why not the amount of pension, Dearness Allowance and family pension etc. must also be the same. No doubt gratuity is ordinarily paid once only on retirement, whereas pension is payable periodically so long as the petitioners are alive after the age of superannuation. We don't find any valid reason in depriving the petitioners from the benefits of Dearness Allowance and family pension etc. admissible to pension drawn by an employee of Nagar Mahapalika and the State Government similarly situated as the petitioners have drawn on the date of their retirement. We don't find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for respondent that the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad does not possess sufficient means. 12. In Union of India v. All India Service Pensioners Association, (decided on 14-1-88 by their Lordships of the Supreme Court), (reported in AIR 1988 SC 501 : 1988 Lab IC 973), it was directed that the direction for payment of gratuity made by the Administrative Tribunal was held to be erroneous. We apply the same principle to the present case and are of the view that the petitioners would not be entitled to similar amount of gratuity as payable to other employees of the State Government. 13. In view of the premises aforesaid, the present petition succeeds and is allowed A writ of Mandamus is issued to respondents directing them to pay the petitioners similar amount of pension including Dearness Allowance and family pension etc. 13. In view of the premises aforesaid, the present petition succeeds and is allowed A writ of Mandamus is issued to respondents directing them to pay the petitioners similar amount of pension including Dearness Allowance and family pension etc. admissible to State Government employees or the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur since July 2, 1981 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. It may be clarified that this relief would not extend to payment of gratuity. However, under the circumstances of the case, we refrain from making any order as to costs.