JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner of this writ petition, Sri Murtaza Husain, retired Lok Ayukta, Uttar Pradesh, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix his additional pension as a retired Lok Ayukta at the rate of Rs. 7900/- per annum with effect from 11.1.1989 and pay arrears due to him within three months together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. He has also prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to refund Rs. 1835.41 p, deducted from his salary as Lok Ayukta as pension equivalent of gratuity within three months together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. 2. The question of fixation of petitioner's pension arose after his retirement as Lok Ayukta. The then Chief Secretary to Government of U.P. sent, for a report of Assistant Accountant General who has been arrayed as respondent no 3. The Accountant general submitted the report on 16-2-89 to the effect that if for the purposes of pension the petitioner was treated at par with the Chief Justice under Section 5(5) of the T.P. Lok Ayukta and Lokayukta Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') then he was entitled to get additional pension of Rs. 7900/- per annum otherwise he was entitled to get only Rs. 1900/- per annum. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, respondent 'No. 1 awarded only Rs. 1900/- per annum as additional pension to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to respondent no. 1 against the said order. The same was rejected on April 16, 1990. Aggrieved against the said order Sri Murtaza Husain has filed this writ petition requiring the opposite parties to correctly fix his pension in accordance with the Act and the Rules there under. 3. The petitioner joined the U.P. Judicial Service as Munsif on May 3, 1945 and after passing through different promotional stages he was elevated as a Judge of this Court on January 8, 1976 from which post he retired on December 8, 1982 and upon his retirement as a Judge of this Court initially his pension was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1791.66 P. per month but later on it was fixed to Rs. 46100/- per annum. The revised pension payment order has been annexed by the petitioner as annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. It has been further averred in the writ petition that on January 10, 1983 the petitioner assumed the charge of Lok Ayukta of the U.P. Government, after he was appointed as such by the State Government of U.P. under Section 3 of the Act. The term of his office was five years but upon the amendment of the aforesaid Act the term was enhanced to six years. He retired as Lok Ayukta on January 10, 1989 upon completion of six years' term of his office. 5. During continuance of the term of his office as Lok Ayukta the petitioner was receiving same salary as a Judge of the High Court. He was however receiving allowances known as Car allowance, sumptuary allowance in accordance with Sections 5 (4) and 5 (5) read with Schedule 2 and the Rules which are admissible to a Chief Justice. The petitioner also enjoyed the same protocol as the Chief Justice. Sections 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the act read as under :- "5(4) There shall be paid to the Lok Ayukta and the Up Lokayukta such salaries as are specified in the second Schedule." 5(5) The allowances and pension, if any, payable to and other conditions of service of :- (a) the Lokayukta, regard shall be had to the allowances and pension payable to and other conditions of Service, of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (b) the Up Lokayukta, regard shall be had to the allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of service of, a Judge of a High Court. Provided further, that the allowances and pension if any payable to, and other conditions of service of the Lokayukta or an Up Lokayukta shall not be carried to his dis-advantage after his appointment." 6. Under Section 21 of the Act, Rules were framed regarding conditions of service of Lok Ayukta known as the Up Lokayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Provided further, that the allowances and pension if any payable to, and other conditions of service of the Lokayukta or an Up Lokayukta shall not be carried to his dis-advantage after his appointment." 6. Under Section 21 of the Act, Rules were framed regarding conditions of service of Lok Ayukta known as the Up Lokayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Rule 9 (2) of the Act provides as under :- Section 9(2): Where any pension for prior service is admissible to the Lok Ayukta, he shall on completion of his full term as Lok Ayukta, be entitled to an additional pension equal to the difference in amounts of the pension for prior service and the aggregate pension." 7. The additional pension, according to the petitioner, has to be calculated with reference to the pension payable to the Chief Justice as provided under Section 5 (5) of the Act read with Rule 9(1) which is reproduced below :- "Rule 9 (1) : In this Rule the expression :- (a) 'Prior Service' means the Government Service rendered prior to appointment as Lok Ayukta, '(b) 'Pension for prior service' means the pension admissible for prior service including the pension of pension commuted, if any, and the pension equivalent to retirement gratuity, (c) 'Aggregate Pension' means the pension that would be admissible under the relevant rules including Rule 2 of the High Court Judges Rules, 1956, read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the All India Services (Death-cum-retirement benefits) Rules, 1958 for prior service as computed after adding the period of service rendered a Lokayukta for the period of prior service." 8. Rule 10 of the said Rules further provide :- "Rule 10 : "Other allowances (including the dearness allowance) and conditions of service of the Lokayukta, provisions where-for have not expressly been made in the Act or these Rules, shall be the same (as far as may be) as are for the time being applicable to the Chief Justice of the High Court." 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in Which it was indicated that as provided under Rule 9(c) of the Rules, (The U.P. Lokayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981),framed under Section 21 of the Act for purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in Which it was indicated that as provided under Rule 9(c) of the Rules, (The U.P. Lokayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981),framed under Section 21 of the Act for purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs. 1900/- per annum in consultation with the Accountant General, U.P., Allahabad, after taking into account his appointment as High Court Judge in accordance-with Rule 9 of the said Rules. It was further averred that the petitioner represented to the Government that he was entitled to additional pen: ion of 7900/- per annum taking into account the pension payable to the Chief Justice of the High Court as per conditions laid down in Section 5 (5) (a) of the Act as well as the Rule 10 of the Rules, 1981. His representation was examined in detail in consultation With the law department. It was found that Rule 10 of the Rule of 1981 did not apply to his case and his additional pension was tightly calculated at Rs. 1900/- per annum taking into account the pension payable to the High Court Judge, a port which he held prior to his appointment as Lok Ayukta notwithstanding that Dearness Allowance, Sumptuary allowance and Car Maintenance Allowance as admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court, was allowed to him as such his representation was rejected. It was further averred in the counter affidavit that Sri Husain was entitled only to Car allowance and Sumptuary allowance in accordance with Section 5 (4) and 5 (5) read with Schedule 2 which was admissible to the Chief Justice, keeping in view his status as Lok Ayukta but for pensionary benefits Sri Husain was entitled for fixation of his pension as a retired Judge of the High Court in accordance with the Rule 1 (a) to (c) of the U.P. Lok Ayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules. 1981. Rule 10 of the Lok Ayukta and Up Lok Ayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 does not apply in his case. His pension was rightly calculated at Rs. 1981. Rule 10 of the Lok Ayukta and Up Lok Ayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 does not apply in his case. His pension was rightly calculated at Rs. 1900/- per annum taking into account the pension payable to a High Court Judge which post he held prior to his appointment as Lok Ayukta notwithstanding that Dearness Allowance, Sumptuary and Car Maintenance Allowance as admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court was allowed to him. 10. A perusal of the provisions of Lok Ayukta and Up Lok Ayukta Act, 1975, enshrine, that while the salary of a Lok Ayukta would be the same as was admissible to him in accordance with his immediately previous status being that of a Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court, but all other conditions of service and pensionary benefits would be that of a Chief Justice. 11. In the case of Sri Bishambhar Dayal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1984 ALR, 664, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Singh, speaking for the Bench indicated as under :- "The U.P. Lokayukta & Up Lokayuktas Act, 1975, was enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of Lokayukta. Section 3 of the Act confers power on the Governor to appoint Lokayukta after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and the leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly. Section 5 prescribed a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office as Lokayukta. If, further, lays down conditions of service of Lokayukta. Sub-Sect ion (5) lays down that the allowances and pension, if any, payable to, and other conditions of service of the Lokayukta shall he such as may be prescribed. Proviso to this section lays down that in prescribing the allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of service of Lokayukta, regard shall be had to the allowances and pension payable to and other conditions of service, of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the allowances and pension, if any, payable to and other conditions of service of the Lokayukta shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. Section 21 (2) (b) of the Act confers power on the Governor to frame rules which, may provide for the allowance and pension, if any, payable to and other conditions of service of, the Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas. Section 21 (2) (b) of the Act confers power on the Governor to frame rules which, may provide for the allowance and pension, if any, payable to and other conditions of service of, the Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas. The State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) read with clause (b) of Section 21 of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas Act, 1975, framed rules regulating the Service of Lokayukta and Up Lokayuktas. Rules were published in the Gazette dated September 5, 1981, which is known as "The Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981". These rules expressly provide that Lokayukta shall be entitled to rent free official residence, conveyance, facilities for medical treatment, travelling allowance, general provident fund, leave and pension. Rule 10 lays down that other allowances (Including the dearness allowance) and conditions of service of the Lokayukta, provisions where for have not expressly been trade in the Act or the Rules, shall be the same (as far as may be) for the time being as applicable to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The rules contain provisions for other allowances and pension; but, they do not contain any provision for gratuity in the rules the same would be governed by the Rules which may be applicable to the Chief Justice of the High Court. This is in consonance with the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Act which lays down that while prescribing pension and other allowances payable to Lokayukta, regard shall be had to the allowances, and pension payable to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The legislative intent is thus clear that unless expressly provided for, the allowances and pension of a Lokayukta shall be similar as payable to the Chief Justice of High Court. The legislature having regard to the high office of Lokayukta intended that he should be entitled to the same pensionary benefits to which the Chief Justice is entitled." 12. It was further indicated :- "Since the chief Justice of the High Court is entitled to gratuity on his retirement in accordance with section 17 A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, the Lokayukta is also entitled to gratuity in the same manner and at the same rate and with the same limitations as are prescribed by the 1954 Act." 13. The Hon'ble Court held that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity in accordance with the rules, notifications and orders which may be in force for the time being applicable to an officer of the Central Civil Services, Class I, subject to the modifications contained in sub-section (3) of section 17-A of the Act. The State Government was wholly unjustified in refusing to grunt gratuity to the petitioner. It was also held that in absence of the rules to the contrary in 1981 Rules a Lokayukta is entitled to the payment of cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the leave Which might be at his credit on the date of his retirement in accordance with rule 20-B of the All India Service (Leave) Rules read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judge Rules. 1956. 14. Thus, it is evident that Lokayukta was entitled to same pensionary benefits as of a Chief Justice. The petitioner was already entitled to a peroid on of Rs. 46100/- per annum for his past services. His aggregate pension according to Section 5 (5) of the Act should be that which is payable to the Chief Justice i.e. Rs, 54000/- per annum. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get his additional pension at the rate of Rs. 7900/- per annum. The additional pension has to be calculated with reference to the pension payable to the Chief Justice. Rule 10 oi U.P. Lokayukta and Lokayuktas Rules, 1981, which provide that other allowances (including the dearness allowance) and conditions of service of the Lok Ayukta. provisions wherefore, have not expressly been made in the Act or these Rules, shall be the same (as far as may be) as are for the time being applicable to the Chief Justice of the High Court, supports the contention of the petitioner for fixation of his pension which is admissible to the Chief Justice. Although in the counter affidavit it has been averred that Rule 10 is not applicable to the instant case but neither it has been explained nor argued before this Court as to why Rule 10 could not be made applicable. The action of the opposite parties, fixing petitioner's additional pension as a retired Lok Ayukta at the rate of Rs. 1900/- per annum is not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 5(5) of the Act and the Rules quoted above. The deduction of Rs. The action of the opposite parties, fixing petitioner's additional pension as a retired Lok Ayukta at the rate of Rs. 1900/- per annum is not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 5(5) of the Act and the Rules quoted above. The deduction of Rs. 1835.41 from his salary as Lok Ayukta for the period commencing from 1- -88 to 24-11-88 as pension equivalent to death-cum-retirement gratuity cannot also be sustained for the reason that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dayal Srivastava v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 465 had ruled that such a deduction cannot be made later on. A Division Bench, in the case of S.K. Kaul v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 3993 of 1988 decided on 27-4-89 by this Court, reiterated what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dayal (Supra). Thus it is evident that the opposite parties have committed manifest error of law by not fixing the pension of the petitioner correctly in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(5) of the Act, 1975. The Additional pennon had to be fixed by treating six years' term of the petitioner to the office with reference to the pension payable to the Chief Justice of the High Court. While fixing the additional pension the State Government did not take into consideration the aforesaid Section 5(5) of the Act and the Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules indicated above. The deductions which were made from the salary of the petitioner were also unwarranted and contrary to law. 15. In view of what has been indicated above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent fixing additional petitioner as retired Lok Ayukta at Rs 1900/- (contained in annexure no. 5) is issued. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix additional pension of the petitioner as retired Lok Ayukta at Rs. 7900/- per annum with effect from 11-1-89 is issued. The respondents are further commanded to pay the arrears due to the petitioner within six months from today. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund Rs. 1835.41 P., deducted from his salary as Lok Ayukta as pension equivalent to gratuity with the said period of six months is also issued. The respondents are further commanded to pay the arrears due to the petitioner within six months from today. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund Rs. 1835.41 P., deducted from his salary as Lok Ayukta as pension equivalent to gratuity with the said period of six months is also issued. The amount of pension payable for the period concerned would be taken into account by the Income Tax Authorities as income when it became payable and not when it would be actually paid. The relief. so far as it relates to payment of amount with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, is refused. However, this Court is of the view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to hie the present writ petition, it is really unfortunate that the opposite parties have wrongly with-held the additional pension of the petitioner to which he was entitled to under he provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. If persons of such high stature and calibre are forced to seek redress before the Court, the fate of other persons who have not achieved eminence anti stature would hinge upon the mercy of the officials. Hence, this is a fit case in which this Court feels that the interest of justice would be met if opposite parties are saddled with special costs or compensation to the tune of Rs. 2500/-. The amount of compensation awarded would be paid by the opposite parties to the Legal Aid Committee of the High Court to provide assistance and help to public servants who are not paid their pensionary benefit, on due dates.