ORDER U. C. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner, who was a member of the Higher Judicial Service; retired as District Judge on 31st August, 1985. By means of this writ petition, has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the U.P. Vittya (Samanya) Anubhag-4 Notification No. Sa-4-1732/Das-87:301-87 Lucknow dated 17-11-1987. contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and has also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix and pay the petitioner's substantive pension from T 1-1-1986 at the rate of Rs. 3976/- per month according to G.O. dated 28-7-1987, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. I to the writ petition with interest at the rate of 20% per annum till the date of final payment. 2. The Govenor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of powers under Article 30 of the Constitution of India liberalised, revised and simplified the pension structures of the pensioners with effect from I-1-1986 vide G.O. No. Sa-4-1120/Das 87-301/87 Lucknow dated 28-7-1987. The G.O. provided that the pension from 1-1-1986 will be consolidated by the following items and will consist of : (a) Present Pension (b) Present Dearness allowance. (c) Additional Relief. (d) Additional Pension. "Present Pension" means substantive pension including the commuted portion, if any, payable on 31-12-1985 "Dearness Relief" means relief which was payable by G.O. No. Sa-4-GI-18/Das-86-300/85 dated 6-5-1986 by which &)8 points of dearness were neutralised. "Additional Relief" means relief mentioned in Para 4 of the G.O. dated 6-5-1986. It is paid to remain in line with the Central Government's last Pay Commission Report and the Central Government's decision thereon that the dearness.be neutralised to the extent of full pension as against the then prevailing formula of neutralisation up to the maximum of Rs. 5(X)/- pension only. Sub- paras Ka, Kha and Ga of para-4 contain the formula of additional relief for those who retired up to 30-3-1985, Sub-para Gha of para-4 contains provisions for Additional Relief for those who retired between 31st March, 1985' and 31st Dec. 1985 (including the petitioner). It makes all the other provisions of para-4 inapplicable to them and provides that Additional Relief shall be payable to the petitioner's category only as provided in the Ready Reckoner. Column-5 of the Ready Reckoner provides that the Additional Relief payable will he 'amount equal to total of column and Rs. 1985 (including the petitioner). It makes all the other provisions of para-4 inapplicable to them and provides that Additional Relief shall be payable to the petitioner's category only as provided in the Ready Reckoner. Column-5 of the Ready Reckoner provides that the Additional Relief payable will he 'amount equal to total of column and Rs. 63/- in all cases'. It is payable to the maximum of Rs. 15(X)/- in column-1. "Additional Pension" means the difference between the present pension and 5O%t. of the average of last 10 months emoluments as mentioned in para-5. 3. The petitioner's pension was fixed in December, 1987 and the Lucknow Treasury had determined its part in March, 1988 and petitioner's pension was determined and fixed at Rs. 2413/- per month which includes present pension, present dearness allowance, additional relief and additional pension. 4. According to the petitioner his pension should have been determined and fixed at Rs.3976 - per month from 1-1-1986. The petitioner has stated that he has not been given Present Dearness Allowance and the correct Additional Relief. The petitioner's representations in this behalf having been rejected, he has approached this Court. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the Government Order dated 28th July, 1987 has been issued under the authority of Governor of Uttar Pradesh, while the Circular dated 17-11-1987. by means of which he has been given Rs. 63/- as Additional Relief has been issued by the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department under the directions of somebody whose designation he has concealed and has not mentioned as to under which powers, if he had any, were exercised by him to amend it. It has also been argued that issuance of the Circular dated 17-11-87 encroaches upon the powers vested in the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it was a result of mala fides of the finance department. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner that the Government Order dated 28-7-1987 cannot be neutralised by issuance of Circular. It has also been pleaded that 608 points, which the U.P. Government neuteralised G.Os. dated 28-7-1987 and 27-6-1987 cannot he neutralised without paying less than Rs. 251 /- and the award of Rs. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner that the Government Order dated 28-7-1987 cannot be neutralised by issuance of Circular. It has also been pleaded that 608 points, which the U.P. Government neuteralised G.Os. dated 28-7-1987 and 27-6-1987 cannot he neutralised without paying less than Rs. 251 /- and the award of Rs. -63/-is misconceived and the 'pension' being 'property rights' and it having been conferred by the said G.O. dated 28-7-1987, the same could not he divested except by proper legislation as required under Article 3(X)-A of the Constitution and the notification dated 17-11-1987 cannot amend any administrative instruction or Constitutional Rule, and that too with retrospective effect and the notification is mala fide and contrary to Government Instructions and orders and is discriminatory inasmuch as according to the clarification made by the notification dated 17-11-1987, persons who retired on 1-3-1985 will get more pension from 1-1-1986 than if they would have retired on 1-4-1985. 6. In the counter-affidavit, which has been filed by V. T. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Finance Department, to which exception has been taken because of certain words used by him, it has been pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Relief of Rs. 63/- once only as sanctioned vide O.M. No. Sa-4- GI-18/x-86-3(X)/85 dated 6-5-1986 and to no other relief or additional relief as claimed by him. The pension of pensioners of the petitioner's category, were allowed pension after adding an amount of dearness allowance equivalent to 568 points of price index and the pension of those who had retired on or after 31-3-1985 and up to 31-12-1985 has been fixed accordingly and it is absolutely impossible to neutralise the effect of 40 points of price index twice and if. the petitioner succeeds, the petitioner as well as thousands of other pensioners of this period shall get a neutralisation of 648 points of price index instead of 608 which would be absolutely incorrect and which would put the State Government to an uncalled for burden of crores of Rupees. It has further been stated by him that the petitioner has taken advantage of a small error left into drafting of paras-4. I (Gha) and 6.1 and that is why it has been pleaded by the petitioner that corrigendum dated 17-I1-1987 does not have status of Government Order. 7. It has further been stated by him that the petitioner has taken advantage of a small error left into drafting of paras-4. I (Gha) and 6.1 and that is why it has been pleaded by the petitioner that corrigendum dated 17-I1-1987 does not have status of Government Order. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit, reference to to the recommendation made -by the Commission has been made and it has been stated that recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission (Central) are not relevant after the issue of notification dated 28-7-1987 issued by the State Government. It has further been stated that even if the Central Pay Commission has observed char the Central Government Pensioners of the, period of 31-3-1985 to 31-12-1985 have been given neutralisation of 568 points, they cannot be denied further Dearness Relief for neutralisation of Remaining 40 points (i.e. relief of 608 points) on their full pension as is the spirit of the Commission Report. Rs. 63/- neutralises dearness on pension up to Rs. 500/- only. It has further been stated that so far as the U.P. Pensioners are concerned, there was no pensioner of the Class of Table Ill having 92.5'% dearness relief and there were only three classes on 6-5-1986 enjoying 127.5, 107.5 and 12.5% dearness relief respectively; the last one relating to the petitioner's class who retired on 31-8-1985. It has been stated that 12.5% of the petitioner's pension (i.e. Rs. 2005/- plus 345/- = Rs. 2345 (2.350)) comes to Rs. 293, and, as such, it is wrong to say that the petitioner is not entitled to anything as Additional Relief beyond the sum of Rs. 63/- of the present Dearness-relief. The petitioner has further asserted that denial of neutralisation of dearness allowance beyond the pension of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner, as has been done in the case of other petitioners, is discriminatory and is hit by Articles 14-and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been stated that after the revision of the pay scales of U.P. Government Employees from 1-1-1986, the officers of the petitioner's seniority and grade will also get about Rs. 4,000/- per month as pension and as such, in the petitioner's claim, there is nothing inconsistent. 8. It has further been stated that after the revision of the pay scales of U.P. Government Employees from 1-1-1986, the officers of the petitioner's seniority and grade will also get about Rs. 4,000/- per month as pension and as such, in the petitioner's claim, there is nothing inconsistent. 8. The question for consideration is as to whether the so-called clarification, which has been issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Finance Department dated 17-11-1987, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, could be modified and he deviated from the terms of the Government Order 28-7-1987 issued in the name and authority of the Governor, Uttar Pradesh, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. I to the writ petition. The said G.O. was issued under the executive power of the State and was duly authenticated in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India while the so called clarification of modification, which has been issued under the signatures of the Joint Secretary, does not mention the authority under whose direction the same was issued. No attempt was made by the opposite parties to show that it was issued under the authority or direction of the Governor. The counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary is silent on the point and no reference has been made to the Rules of business and it has been stated that the sane ,procedure was followed in framing and issuing the notification or corrigendum which deviates from the original Government Order. The modification of the Government Order which has not been issued by the Govern. cannot be deemed to be modification of the Government Order. The Order which is not duly authenticated or has not been made or concurred by the competent authority cannot be a legal order or read as such (See Ghio Mal v. State of Delhi; 1959 SCR 1424 : ( AIR 1959 SC 65 ). 9. The Government Order dated 28th July, 1987 gave a particular declaration and conferred entitlement and vested certain rights in the petitioner who retired on a particular date and the said rights cannot be taken away in the name of modification or clarification issued by the department. 9. The Government Order dated 28th July, 1987 gave a particular declaration and conferred entitlement and vested certain rights in the petitioner who retired on a particular date and the said rights cannot be taken away in the name of modification or clarification issued by the department. Consequently, the notification dated 17-11-1987, copy of which is annexed as annexure No. 2, has no legal force and cannot be used for the purpose of modification of Government Order 28-7-1987 and the petitioner is entitled to Additional Relief in accordance with para S of the Government Order with reference to the ready reckoner. 10. On behalf of the petitioner it has been stated that fixation of a cut off date for higher and lower pension and depriving a person of his property in this manner is arbitrary and unreasonable and the same has got no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The plea so raised cannot be said to he without substance. The Government cannot be said to be so unclear and fickle minded that every order of it will require clarification by the department concerned in the matter. As the writ petition is being allowed, the plea of discrimination, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, which may have considerable force, are not being considered in this case. 11. Consequently the writ petition is allowed and the notification dated 17-11-1987, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned and a writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to pay Additional Relief to the petitioner without delay in accordance with G.O. dated 28-7-1987. 12. There will be no order as to costs.