JUDGMENT S. B. Sanyal & R. N. Lal, JJ. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and fact and thus have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Finance Department's letter bearing no. 2646 dated 26th April, 1988 (Annexure 4) and letter no. 4181 dated 21st July, 1988 (Annexure 5) issued to various Heads of Departments disclosing sanction of withdrawal of compulsorily-deposited dearness allowance for the period 1979-1984 in the provident fund account after expiry of five years along with interest, is in contravention of Govt. Letter nos. 5703 dated 2.7.1984 and 8888 dated 14.12.1986 and directed realization of the sums so withdrawn in eight equal instalments between July 1988 and February 1989. These two directions are marked Annexures 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087 of 1988 and have been marked differently in other writ petitions. 3. The dearness allowance payable to the State Government employees prior to 17.1.1979 was different than the one payable to the Central Govt. employees. There was general agitation by the employees of the State Govt. for grant of dearness allowance at the Central rate, and the State Government agreed that dearness allowance payable to the State Govt. employees of Class II, Class III and Class IV would be paid at the Central rate, i.e., those who were drawing salary between Rs. 300/- and Rs. 2250/- per month. In furtherance to the said agreement, the Govt. in the Department of Finance passed a Resolution (Sankalp) dated 17.1.1979 (Annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/85). After having set out the Central rates of dearness allowance admissible to different categories of employees, the Resolution provided in paragraph No.3 for the modalities of payment. Paragraph No.3 of the said Resolution in Roman and official English translation thereof are set out below, since decision of the writ petitions depends on the interpretation of the said paragraph: Roman "Jeevan Yapan bhatta me in virdhi ke parinam swarup 96/- Rupaya parti mah (Jo abhi nagad rup mein deya hai) se jo rasbi adhik hogi usey 242/- Rupaya tak betan panewala chaturth vargiya Sarkari Sevakon ko nagad bhugtan kiya jayega. Anya Sarkari Sevakon ko 96/- Rupaya parti mah se adhik Jeevan Yapan batte ki jo rashi dey hogi usmen aadhi rakam nagad bhugtan kiya jayega tatha adhi rakam bhayishya nidhi mein jama ki jayegi evam eskey liya samanya bhavishya nidhi niyamavali ke pravdhan lagu hongey, parantu antar yahi rahega ki samanya bhavishya nidhi niyamavali ke niyam 15 se 28 tak ke pravdhan jeevan yapan bhatta se jama hui rashi ke prasang mein lagu nahin honge. Dusre Shabdon mein Jeevan Yapan bhatta ka jo ansh samanaya bhavishya lekha mein jama hogi, usaki niksi panch verson tak nahin hogi aur panch varson ke baad yadi es rashi ki nikashi hogi to parti varsh mein panchway hisse say adhik rashi agrim ke roop mein swikrit nahin ki jayegi." English translation “Consequent upon increase in cost of living allowance, the amount which is in excess of Rs, 96/- per month (which at present is payable in cash) shall be paid in cash to the fourth grade Government employees drawing a salary up to Rs. 242/- Half of the cost of living allowance payable to other Government servants in excess of Rs. 96 per month, shall be paid in cash and half amount shall be deposited in provident fund and for this the provisions of general Provident Fund Rules shall be applicable, but the difference shall be that the provision under Rules 15 to 28 of General Provident Fund Rules regarding withdrawal of advance from general Provident Fund shall not be applicable in respect of amount deposited from cost of living allowance. In other words the portion of cost of living allowance deposited in General Provident Fund Account shall not be withdrawn for five years and if this amount is withdrawn after five years, in that case not more than one fifth amount shall be sanctioned as advance each year." 4. A Circular bearing no. 5703 dated 2.8.84 (by mistake it has been dated as 2nd July, 1984 in the body of Annexure-4 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88) was issued on expiration of five years of the first deposit stating that for the financial year 1979-80 the State Government employees were entitled to take cash of 1/5th of the deposit made in the said year and to that extent paragraph no. 3 of the Resolution dated 17.1.1979 stood relaxed. 5. 3 of the Resolution dated 17.1.1979 stood relaxed. 5. It appears that the sanctioning authorities under the Bihar G. P. F. Rules in terms of paragraph no. 3 of the Finance Department Resolution dated 17.1.1979 accorded sanction in April 1988 for withdrawal of the compulsorily deposited dearness allowance in G.P.F. Account at the ratio of 5/5, 4/5, 3/5, 2/5 1/5th of the instalments of the deposits made during the year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 respectively with interest thereon vide Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88. Similar withdrawals at the said ratio for different years after the expiry of five years have been allowed to the petitioners in other writ petitions. The said withdrawal of instalments or accumulated instalments, as the case may be, has been allowed by the sanctioning authority without any letter of the Finance Department, as was issued in the year 1984-vide Annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88. 6. The Finance Department, as said earlier, issued two impugned orders, the substance whereof is that the withdrawal of instalments other than the year 1979-80 has been irregular and illegal, since the Finance Department did not issue any General letter sanctioning withdrawal of 1/5th of the required deposits of the dearness allowance in the provident fund account for all the years and as such those employees, who have obtained payment of the said sum from the provident fund account, were directed to pay back the same in 8 equal instalments in the financial year 1988-89 by re depositing the same in the P.F. Account. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government in C.W.J.C. No. 6796 of 1988 and a prayer has been made therein to treat it as a counter-affidavit in all the writ petitions including C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88. This affidavit has been sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department. It has been stated therein that on 1.3.1979 the highest amount of dearness allowance payable to the State Government was Rs. 96/- and the highest pay of a Class IV employee prior to March 1979 was Rs. 242/- per month. Further by Resolution dated 17.1.1979 the Government decided : (a) All Class IV employees, who were getting pay upto Rs. 242/- will receive the enhanced D. A. or Addl. D. A. in cash. (b) All other employees will get enhanced D. A. or Additional D. A. upto Rs. 242/- per month. Further by Resolution dated 17.1.1979 the Government decided : (a) All Class IV employees, who were getting pay upto Rs. 242/- will receive the enhanced D. A. or Addl. D. A. in cash. (b) All other employees will get enhanced D. A. or Additional D. A. upto Rs. 96/- in cash and the amount over Rs. 96/- which is payable, half of it would be paid in cash and the other half would be deposited in the general provident fund account. (c) The impounded half will not be governed by Rules 15 to 28 of the G.P.F. Rules, and the said amount would be permitted to be withdrawn as laid down by the Government Resolution of 1979. In paragraph no. 4(d) of the said counter affidavit the procedure to withdraw the amount has been stated, which reads as hereunder: “The amount of D.A./Addl. D. A. deposited in the G.P.F. account shall not be permitted to be withdrawn. If the amount is permitted to be withdrawn it will be after 5 years and will not be more than 1/5th of each concerned year of the deposit permitted to he withdrawn. Such withdrawal shall be as an advance. In other words, this amount deposited in the Provident Fund shall not be allowed to be withdrawn for a period of five years and on completion of five years if the deposit is allowed to be withdrawn, it shall be in the form of advance only. Further this advanced amount shall be limited to 1/5th of the deposited amount of the employees of five years back.” 8. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the Finance Department by letter no. 5703 dated 2nd July, 1984, relaxed the provision regarding withdrawal as contained in Government Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.1979, and permitted to make payment in cash to the non-gazetted employees to the extent of 1/5th of the amount so deposited in their Provident fund in the year 1979-80 and the relevant amounts concerning gazetted employees were transferred to the respective General Provident Fund Accounts. It is also stated that the letter dated 2nd July, 1984, has only relaxed paragraph no. 3 of the Government Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.1979 to the extent indicated above. It is also stated that the letter dated 2nd July, 1984, has only relaxed paragraph no. 3 of the Government Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.1979 to the extent indicated above. Further, the Government by letter dated 19th April, 1980 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) directed that the amount that was being deposited pursuant to Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.79 shall be shown separately in the pay bill and the provident fund scheduled to be attached to the pay bill and that the Accountant General, Bihar, shall maintain a separate account for such deposit. 9. It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit that after the general revision of pay effective from 1.4.1981, the D. A. and Additional D. A. which were being compulsorily deposited in the provident fund account pursuant to the Resolution dated 17.1.1979 got merged into the new admissible pay along with remaining part of the D. A./Additional D.A. which was being paid in cash. This was in accordance with the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. Further, after 1.4.1981, under the revised scales of pay, sixteen instalments of D.A. were sanctioned by the Government between 1.4.1981 and 1.11.1983. By letter dated 16th October, 1984 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit) the Government decided that half of the amount of D. A. admissible upto the month of September 1984 shall be deposited in respect of the instalments of D. A. sanctioned vide Government Resolution dated 30th June, 1984. In other words, from 1.10.84, deposit in the Provident Fund of the half amount of D. A. would continue only in respect of instalments of D. A. sanctioned by Resolution issued upto 30th June, 1984. It was also made clear therein that the terms and conditions with respect to withdrawal of the amount so deposited in the General Provident Fund Account shall continue to be the same, as contained in Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.1979 and letter no. 2835 dated 19th April, 1980. It was also made clear therein that the terms and conditions with respect to withdrawal of the amount so deposited in the General Provident Fund Account shall continue to be the same, as contained in Resolution no. 902 dated 17.1.1979 and letter no. 2835 dated 19th April, 1980. Further, by a Resolution dated 3rd June, 1986 (Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit) the Government decided that with effect from 1.4.1986 the amount that was being deposited in the General Provident Fund Accounts with respect to the two instalments of D. A. sanctioned on 26.3.82 shall be paid in cash together with the other half of D. A. and the amount deposited even with respect to these two instalments prior to 1.4.86 shall not be paid and it was also decided and made clear in the said Resolution that in regard to the 14 remaining instalments of D. A. half of the amount shall continue to be deposited in the Provident Fund Account. Further, again by Resolution dated 24th December, 1986 (Annex.-D) to the Count Aff.) it was decided that with respect to three instalments of D. A. sanctioned-vide Resolution dated 17th April, 1982 shall be paid in cash along with other half of D. A. with effect from 1.12.86 and the amount deposited prior to 1.12.86 even with respect to these three instalments shall not be paid. In other words with effect from 1.12.86 the practice of deposit of half of the amount only in respect of 11 instalments of D. A. would continue. According to the counter-affidavit, the cumulative effect of Resolutions dated 16th October; 1984, 3rd June, 1986 and 24th December, 1986, was that all the instalments of D. A. having become due after 1.11.1983 were paid in cash and that only in respect of 11 instalments of D. A. having been due between 1-4-1981 and 1.11.1983, half of the amount was continued to be deposited into General Provident Fund Account and would continue to be so. It is said that the Finance Department received a copy of the order dated 2nd March, 1988 of the Treasury Officer, Secretariat Treasury, Patna, sanctions illegal and unauthorised withdrawal by the State Government employees working in the Treasury of the amount deposited into Provident Fund between March 1979 and February 1983 with interest thereon and thereafter the matter was examined by the Finance Department and the impugned orders as aforesaid were issued. The counter-affidavit further states that sanction of D. A. and the mode of payment of D.A. involves financial implications and financial management and the Government takes policy decision on the subject taking into account also the financial resources available and the illegal withdrawals allowed by the concerned officers have created financial burden. 10. A further counter-affidavit has been filed in C.W.J.C. no. 6796/88 on 19.9.88 where in, inter alia, it has been asserted that since 1.10.1984 all the instalments of dearness allowance are being paid in cash. 11. From the reply to the counter-affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. no. 5087/88 it appears that from 1.4.1981 to 1.11.1983 there was some increase in the dearness allowance, half of which was payable in cash and the balance half was to be deposited in the G.P.F. Account, which deposit would abide by paragraph no. 3 of the Resolution dated 17.1.1979, extracted above. 12. It is further stated in the said reply to the counter-affidavit that the State Government has, however, been progressively releasing the dearness instalments in cash with the increase in the rate of dearness allowance, but is still requiring to deposit half of the eleven instalments, which would abide by paragraph no. 3 of 1979 Resolution. 13. From the averments made in the writ petitions it appeals that withdrawals of the impounded accumulated dearness allowance at the ratio of 5/5, 4/5, 3/5, 2/5 and 1/5 for tile years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 have been wade between the period November 1987 and May 1988. 14. Mr. Katariar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Government Resolution dated 17.1.1979 is self contained and self-operative; as to right of withdrawal of the deposited dearness allowance from the Provident Fund Account on expiration of five years, the direction to the sanctioning authority not to follow withdrawal of 1/5th for each year by way of advance on expiration of five years, if any person desires withdrawal. What and how much deposit can be withdrawn on expiration of five years, has been indicated in the Government Resolution and for that no further Government order is at all required. The sanctioning authority has been provided with all the guidelines in the Government Resolution dated 17.1.1979. What and how much deposit can be withdrawn on expiration of five years, has been indicated in the Government Resolution and for that no further Government order is at all required. The sanctioning authority has been provided with all the guidelines in the Government Resolution dated 17.1.1979. Learned counsel further contended that the deposited dearness allowance belonged to the petitioners and is meant to neutralize the cost of living, and unless that sum is made available to the employees, the dearness of goods is not met, even though dearness allowance is to meet the rising cost of goods and that cannot be equated as post-retirement benefit. It was for this reason that the Government decided that the dearness allowance will remain in deposit to the provident fund account for a period of five years and thereafter the depositor is entitled to draw 1/5th of the deposit in subsequent years to meet the increasing cost of living as also to avoid sudden financial jerk to the State exchequer. Further, the Government Resolution of 1979 is for the benefit of employees and, therefore, the said Resolution should be interpreted in a manner so that the very object of payment of dearness allowance is not frustrated. Further, the hardship that may be caused to the state exchequer for making available to the employees their own many is wholly irrelevant for interpreting the said Government Resolution and in support of this, the learned counsel has relied on many decisions, to with, A.I.R. 1961 S. C. 1491, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1923, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1548, A.I.R. 1972 Bombay 153 and 1982(1) Queens Bench, 173. Learned counsel has gone to the extent of submitting that law has to be followed even if it results in administrative chaos, and for this proposition, he has referred to the cases reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 210 and 1957 (All England Reports) 434. 15. Mr. Learned counsel has gone to the extent of submitting that law has to be followed even if it results in administrative chaos, and for this proposition, he has referred to the cases reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 210 and 1957 (All England Reports) 434. 15. Mr. Katariar has taken an additional point by filing a written argument after the judgment was reserved on 29-9-1989, after serving a copy of the same to the learned Standing Counsel No. 1, to the effect that the decision contained in Government Resolution dated 17-7-1979 (Annexure 1) was issued by the order of the Governor after obtaining sanction of the Bihar Cabinet, whereas Annexure 2 dated 2-8-1984 purported to relax or modify the said Government decision has been issued by the Under Secretary of the Finance Department, and not under the order of the Governor. Therefore, it cannot affect the Government decision rendered by the order of the Governor. 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, contends that without sanction by the State Government, no amount of the deposited allowance could be withdrawn by way of advance, as the extent of withdrawal indicated is subject to sanction (Swikriti) of the Government. It was for this reason that on expiration of five years, the Government brought out letter No. 5703 dated 2nd August, 1984 (Annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88) and the said letter clearly stated that paragraph No.3 of the Resolution dated 17-1-1979 should be treated as relaxed only for the financial year 1979-80. It has also been contended that after the letter of 1984, there could be no justification for the sanctioning authority to allow the employees in the years 1987 and 1988 to withdraw the deposited dearness allowance with interest for the subsequent years. The sanctioning authority ought to have asked for clarification from the Department of Finance in view of 1984 letter sanctioning withdrawal of the deposited dearness allowance for the financial year 1979-80 only before permitting the employees to draw the deposited dearness allowance for the subsequent years. According to learned Standing Counsel No. 1, without prior sanction, no depositor is permitted to withdraw the deposited dearness allowance even after the expiration of five years, and it is not correct, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the said Government Resolution is self contained and self-operative. According to learned Standing Counsel No. 1, without prior sanction, no depositor is permitted to withdraw the deposited dearness allowance even after the expiration of five years, and it is not correct, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the said Government Resolution is self contained and self-operative. Sanction of the Government is also required for obtaining advance of 1/5th for each year for such persons who intend to withdraw out of the said deposited dearness allowance from the provident fund account. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that even though the Government allowed central dearness allowance to its employees, half of the said amount which was required to be deposited in the provident fund account, took the colour of provident fund of the employees and payable along with the regular provident fund but the provisions of Rules 15 to 28 of the Bihar Provident Fund Rules, which relate to grant of advance, are not applicable to the said deposit. This was the Government policy to which all the parties agreed and the petitioners cannot now turn round and assail the Government decision. In reply to the additional ground that the letter of the Finance Department (Annexure 2) of the year 1984 cannot relax or modify the Government decision learned Standing Counsel stated that the Finance Department has merely carded out the Government decision by according permission to withdraw. If Annexure 2 is impeached on that ground, as the petitioners counsel intends, the petitioners are not even entitled to withdraw 1/5th of the instalment even after the expiration of five years. The petitioners, therefore, cannot approbate and reprobate the Finance Department letter (Annexure 2), which is for the benefit of the petitioners, relaxing embargo of paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution. In short, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that only on passing of some order by the Government, the depositor becomes entitled to withdraw, and not other wise. 17. We neither propose to go against the contents of the Government Resolution of the year 1979, nor we propose to rebel against realism. If the Govt. In short, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that only on passing of some order by the Government, the depositor becomes entitled to withdraw, and not other wise. 17. We neither propose to go against the contents of the Government Resolution of the year 1979, nor we propose to rebel against realism. If the Govt. Resolution dated 17th January, 1979, is self operative, permitting the depositor to withdraw 1/5 of the deposit every year after expiration of five years requiring no further order from the Government, the petitioners may be justified in asking us to quash Annexures 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087/88 by which the withdrawals for the subsequent years have been declared by the Finance Department to be illegal and irregular with a direction to re-deposit all the withdrawals for the period other than 1979-80. If, however the Government Resolution of the year 1979 is interpreted as a complete bar of withdrawal of deposited sum and 1/5th of the deposit if intended to be withdrawn after expiration of five years with the prior approval of the Government the Finance Department was wholly justified in asking the sanctioning authorities to recoup the amount illegally allowed to be withdrawn by the employees by way of advance from the provident fund account. 18. The entire dispute depends upon the correct interpretation of the words : “......aur panch varson ke baad yadi es rashi ki nikashi hogi to parti varsh me in panchway hisse say adhik rashi agrim ke roop mein swikrit nahin ki jayegi." 19. In our opinion, the simple meaning of the words extracted above from the Government Resolution of 1979 appears to be that a depositor should not be allowed and/or sanctioned to withdraw more than 1/5th of the deposit of each year after five years if a depositor at an wishes to withdraw. 20. The argument of learned Standing Counsel No. 1 that the withdrawal could be only by way of advance and the depositor is not entitled to it as a matter of right, and, therefore, the Government order is necessary, does not impress us for the reason that whenever any depositor is allowed to withdraw any amount out of the provident fund account, it is always termed as advance, either refundable or non-refundable, at the instance of the sanctioning authority, on fulfillment of certain conditions enumerated in the G.P.F. Rules. Under the G.P.F. Rules there is a sanctioning authority for all the Departments and in the case of High Court, it is the Registrar, and in other cases, Heads of the Departments and/or appropriate administrative Departments of the Government. In our opinion, non-application of Rules 15 to 28 of the Bihar G. P. Fund Rules only meant for prohibiting the sanctioning authority from granting routine advance on fulfillment of the statutory conditions, out of provident fund account. On the contrary, under paragraph No. 3 of the Government Resolution of 1979 the sanctioning authorities were directed not to sanction and advance out of the dearness allowance deposit for a period of five years, and if anybody intends to withdraw, they should not sanction by way of advance from the said account more than 1/5th of the deposit for each year. In paragraph No. 3 of the 1979 Resolution, the Finance Department, and for that matter, the Government has not been identified to be the sanctioning authority for permitting withdrawal. The learned Standing Counsel is not correct in contending that because the sanctioning authority has not been identified in, the Government Resolution (Annexure 1), the grantor of the dearness allowance, being the Finance Department, the latter must he deemed to be the sanctioning authority. This argument of the learned counsel does not impress us for the simple reason that there being no specific mention of a sanctioning authority to sanction advance out of the deposited dearness allowance from the provident fund account, the sanctioning authorities must be those authorities who are authorities to sanction advance under the Bihar G. P. Fund Rules. The Finance Department is neither the grantor of the dearness allowance, nor the authority identified for the purpose of sanction under paragraph No. 3 of the 1979 Resolution. The grantor for the payment of dearness allowance is the State Government. 21. We are therefore, of the opinion that there is much substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government Resolution dated 17th January, 1979, is a self contained and self operative decision as to the entitlement of a depositor to take advance of the deposited dearness allowance to the extent of 1/5th only after expiration of five years for each year of deposit under the order of the sanctioning authority or departmental heads, as the case may be, under the Bihar Provident Fund Rules. 22. We are further of the opinion that the letter of the Finance Department issued on 2.8.1984 (Annexure 2), even though purported to relax the Government decision in paragraph No. 3 of the 1979 Resolution, actually puts an embargo to the entitlement of withdrawal by restricting it to only one year, namely. 1979-80. The Government may have the power to revise its decision in this regard and may change its policy, as the situation may demand, but the resolution of the year 1979 is under the orders of the Governor, and any amendment, variation or recession of that resolution must be made in like manner and subject to like sanction and conditions as envisaged under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Whereas the Resolution of 17th January, 1979 (Annexure 1) is by the orders of the Governor, preceded by a Cabinet decision to pay the employees of the State Government central dearness allowance in the mode and manner indicated in 1979 Resolution (Annexure 1), but Annexure 2 had been issued under the signature of the Under Secretary of the Finance Department, amending and/or varying the terms of paragraph 3 of the Government Resolution (Annexure 1). This is not permissible. The letter of the Finance Department (Annexure 2) is a futile exercise of the Under Secretary of the Finance Department and has, therefore, to be ignored. Consequently, the further directions of the Finance Department bearing letter No. 2646 dated 26.4.1988 and letter No. 4181 dated 21st June 1988 issued to various Heads of the Department, vide Annexures 4 and 5 in C.W.J.C. No 5087 of 1988, and marked differently in other writ petitions, are quashed which required realisation of the sum so withdrawn by the depositors in eight equal instalments between July 1988 and February 1989. 23. It is, however, made clear that we have not decided in the instant cases the Government's right to vary and/or amend paragraph No.3 of the Government Resolution dated 17th January, 1979 (Annexure 1). But the said exercise must be done in accordance with law. 24. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and Annexures 4 & 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 5087 of 1988, which have been differently marked in other writ petitions are quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. AS. Applications allowed.