JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - This writ petition is by a person who retired in 1975 after serving the Public Works Department for about 30 years for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2nd March, 1990 passed by Accountant General, U. P. Allahabad and also for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension and interest also on the arrears of unpaid amount of pension at the rate of 12% per annum besides other prayer for any other writ to which the petitioner may be entitled. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 3-6-1946 as Work Supervision in P.W.D. at Azamgarh temporarily. He continued to work and was given periodical increments w.e.f. 1-12-1949. The, petitioner was required to appear in the examination of Work Supervisor in July 1963 and was declared successful in the said examination. Although the petitioner had passed the examination of Technical Assistant in 1963 and continued working on the said post since his initial appointment of 1946, but the office of Chief Engineer, P.W.D. by Office Memo dated 5-1-1973 issued another letter of appointment to the Temporary Post of Technical Assistant on initial pay scale Rs. 100-4-120 EB 5-170 EB 5-180 w.e.f. date of going in the division to which they were posted by the Superintendent Engineer. The petitioner who had passed the Technical Assistant Examination, was posted as Technical Assistant which is a post equivallant to post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner was retired in December 1975 after total service of about 30 years. 3. The petitioner stated to have made repeated representations, applications after his retirement to the departmental officers for payment of pension etc. There was no response and he was not paid any pension. Ultimately the petitioner had to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16459 of 1984 before this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the pension and the dues. It is stated that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition No. 36459 of 1984 it was mentioned that petitioner had completed 16 years of continued service before passing the examination of Technical Assistant which took place in the year 1963. It has been stated that the P. W. D. department who were also respondents in the said writ petition had filed counter affidavit and had admitted the said averments of the petitioner. It has been stated that the P. W. D. department who were also respondents in the said writ petition had filed counter affidavit and had admitted the said averments of the petitioner. This fact has been repeated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition to show that it was admitted by the P. W. D. respondents that petitioner had continuously worked for 16 years before he appeared in the Technical Assistants examination in 1963. There is a counter affidavit filed by Sri K.K. Srivastava, Deputy Accountant General Office of A. G. II, U. P. Allahabad. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that contents of para 4 of the writ petition do not relate to the answering respondent. The Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Azamgarh, Superintending Engineer, Azamgarh and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow are respondents No. 2 to 4 and Special Secretary, Pension, Anubhag U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow is respondent No. 5 in this petition. Notices on their behalf was received by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel U. P. on 30-11-1990. On 17-12-1990 one month's time was granted by the Court for filing counter affidavit. No counter affidavit was filed by the Standing Counsel, U, P. on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 5. From the order-sheet of the writ petition also it appears that no request was ever made fox further grant of time for counter affidavit. It appears that the learned Standing Counsel was not interested in contesting the petition, perhaps he was satisfied that the writ petition was being contested by the Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of Accountant General, U.P. It is, thus, an un-controverted fact that the petitioner had continuously served the P.W.D. for a period of 16 years when he was asked to appear in Technical Assistants Examination in 1963. 4. In the writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 this Court was pleased to issue an ad interim mandamus directing the State of U.P. through the Secretary Pension Anubhag and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow to pay pension within a period of one month or show cause by an order dated 30-7-1985. 4. In the writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 this Court was pleased to issue an ad interim mandamus directing the State of U.P. through the Secretary Pension Anubhag and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Lucknow to pay pension within a period of one month or show cause by an order dated 30-7-1985. On 1-10-1985 the learned Standing Counsel, U. P. made a statement before the Division Bench of this Court and on its basis the Court passed the order as under : "The Government has already spent papers relating to grant of pension to the Accountant General, U. P. The petitioner should persue the matter before the Accountant General. In the circumstances, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. Sd. K. N. S. Sd. R. N. D. 1-10-1985." It appears that after the order dated 1-10-1985 was passed by the High Court, the Accountant General II, U. P. Allahabad wrote a letter dated 16-10-1985 to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Azamgarh for sending necessary service certificate concerning the petitioner. The Accountant General II, Allahabad sent back 4 volumes of service book of the petitioner to the Executive Engineer alongwith letter dated 6-11-1986. It is apparent that 4 volumes of service records alleged to have been sent on 6-1-1986 by the office of the Accountant General was not actually sent which was later on sent with another letter Annexure 6-1-86 for necessary action by Executive Engineer P. W. D. Azamgarh. The office of the Engineer Executive P. W, D. reply to letter dated 23-12-1986 sent one part of the petitioner's service record with letter dated 8-1-1987. 5. In spite of the orders of the High Court and constant persuation by the petitioner, the pension was not paid to him. About 8 letters by way of reminders were sent to the office of the Accountant General and several reminders to the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Azamgarh, with no results. Compelled on account of in action of the respondents, in spite of the High Court's order, the petitioner filed another writ petition No. 24946 of 1988 before the High Court with same prayers as made in the earlier writ petition. Compelled on account of in action of the respondents, in spite of the High Court's order, the petitioner filed another writ petition No. 24946 of 1988 before the High Court with same prayers as made in the earlier writ petition. In the second writ petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. A copy of the said counter affidavit has been annexed with this petition as Annexure-12 to show that petitioner's original date of appointment was on 3-6-1946. It is also admitted that the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer by order dated 25-3-1974. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 2-11-1989 by the Division Bench of the Court with a direction that the pension of the petitioner be determined within 3 months of filing of certified copy of the High Court's order. The High Court in the order dated 27-11-1966 was pleased to observe as under : "As to what is the reason for non payment of pension to him is a mystery and we are not able to find out the exact ground on which the Accountant General, U. P. is not doing the same. Curious it is that even a counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the Accountant General " 6. Again after the judgment and order dated 27-11-1989 of the High Court, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Accountant General to give pension in compliance to with the judgment dated 27-11-1989 passed by the High Court. A letter was also sent to the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. for sending the service records of the petitioner to the Accountant General, U. P. The letter was received on 4-12-1989 by Executive Engineer's office. It appears that no records were sent. The petitioner having failed to gel any response even after judgment and order dated 27-11-1989 filed a Civil Contempt petition No. 266 of 1990 against Sri R. P. Dubey Accounts Officer, Pension Anubhag. District Allahabad. A reply was filed in the contempt petition on the show cause notice that the order dated 27-11-1989 has been complied and petitioner's matter about payment of pension have been decided by the Accountant General, U. P. II. District Allahabad. A reply was filed in the contempt petition on the show cause notice that the order dated 27-11-1989 has been complied and petitioner's matter about payment of pension have been decided by the Accountant General, U. P. II. it was stated that the petitioner was not entitled for any pension as he had not served the minimum qualifying period of service of 10 years for grant of pension. It was stated that petitioner had only 7 years 10 months service to his credit. No pension could be be paid unless 10 years service is there as required under Regulations 474 (A) and 474(B), U. P. Civil Service Regulations. 7. The contempt petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the order of High Court dated 27-11-1989 was complied with and no case for action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act was made out. However, the Court was pleased to observe in the judgment that petitioner may file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the Accountant General, U. P., dated 2-3-1990. Thus the present writ petition has been filed. 8. The petitioner by application dated 19-4-1991 prayed for impleading Sri C.V. Avadhani, Accountant General II (PR-I) Allahabad by name also. A copy of the application was served to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, Union of India, representing the Accountant General, The writ petition was taken up on 23-4-1991. The impleadment application was allowed. One week's time was prayed for filing counter affidavit to the affidavit and application which was allowed fixing 6-5-1991 for final disposal. Again on 6-5-1991 case was taken up but on requests on behalf of the learned Senior Standing Counsel 24 hours time was granted for filing counter affidavit, fixing 8th May, 1991 peremptorily. No counter affidavit was filed to the affidavit for impleadment of Sri C. V. Avadhani, A.G. by name. On 8th May, 1991 the case could not be taken up and 10th May was fixed. The learned counsel for the parties were heard on 10th and 13th May, 1991 and hearing concluded, judgment reserved. 9. After scrutinising the facts and circumstances of the case it will be clear that it is the height of negligence and callousness of the Government department in treating their own employees. The learned counsel for the parties were heard on 10th and 13th May, 1991 and hearing concluded, judgment reserved. 9. After scrutinising the facts and circumstances of the case it will be clear that it is the height of negligence and callousness of the Government department in treating their own employees. Persons are allowed to work for a decade or more treating them as temporary and casual workers and ultimately when such employees become old they are retired and given no pension or old age benefits although they had already served for 2 or 3 decades in Government department. It is not unknown that in fact there are certain departments continuously functioning for more than 311-35 years but such departments are treated as temporary departments. The plight of such employees who retired from the so-called temporary departments may be imagined. The responsible officers of the Government departments are required to take suitable steps for regularisation of the temporary employees so that the employees of the department may not have to face financial stringencies and starvation after their retirement. It is strange to note that in a case like one under consideration if goes to the Court of law, the departments where the employees worked for 30 years or more behave in a peculiar way and treat these cases so casually and callously as if the person had ceased to be human being after retirement. No one has any care to see that such matters be attended properly, sympathetically and promptly. 10. It has been pointed out earlier that the petitioner was retired in December 1975 and the plight of the petitioner commenced since then. The Public Works Department (P. W. D.) in short where the petitioner had worked for 3 decades or so failed to take notice of his representations and applications for decades. At no point oi time the P. W. D. ever told the petitioner that although petitioner served for 30 years the department, he had only a service period of 7 years 10 months at his credit which was less than 10 years which is minimum qualifying period for payment of pension. In writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 the Court was pleased to issue interim mandamus to show cause or pay the pension in a month by order dated 30-7-1985. In writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 the Court was pleased to issue interim mandamus to show cause or pay the pension in a month by order dated 30-7-1985. Then at the time of disposal of the writ petition it was stated on behalf of Public Works Department and Special Secretary, Pension "V. Ha" Pension Anubhag, U. P. Shashan that "the Government has already sent the papers relating to the grant of pension to the Accountant General, U.P. The petitioner should pursue the matter before the Account ant General, U. P." On 1-10-1985 when petitioner's writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 was dismissed as it was rendered in-fructuous on that dale also the Public Works Department or Special Secretary, pension, U. P. State never stated that petitioner is not entitled for any pension. Rather, it was positively asserted that the pension papers had already been sent to the Accountant General for determining pension. Again the petitioner had to file C. M. Writ Petition No. 24946 of 1988. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition by order dated 27-11-1989. The said judgment also observed : "As to what is the reason for non-payment of pension to him is a mystry and we are not able to find out exact ground on which the Accountant General is not doing the same. Curious it is that even a counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of Accountant General." 11. It is thus clear that in the earlier writ petition No. 16459 of 1984, the Accountant General, U. P. had not filed any counter affidavit. In the present writ petition, the department in question and the Special Secretary, Pension Anubhag, U. P. Secretariat, are respondents No. 1 to 5 who were served through Standing Counsel was granted time for filing counter affidavit. They have not filed any counter affidavit to controvert the factual averments of the petitioner that petitioner served the department. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i. e, State of U. P. and the Public Works Department and pension secretariat of U. P. preferred to remain silent spectator and Accountant General, U. P. who have filed counter affidavit and passed impugned order have to depend on the department where petitioner actually worked. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i. e, State of U. P. and the Public Works Department and pension secretariat of U. P. preferred to remain silent spectator and Accountant General, U. P. who have filed counter affidavit and passed impugned order have to depend on the department where petitioner actually worked. The petitioner have filed a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Accountant General in the earlier Writ Petition No. 24946 of 1988 with the rejoinder affidavit in the writ petition for showing admitted facts that the Accountant General Office has no important role to play in the controversy. They are to decide pension etc. only on basis of papers furnished by the department of the concerned employee. 12. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner had retired in 1975 and the present writ petition is highly belated. He submitted that the petitioner was himself negligent and delayed the matter. Thus, he is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. The submission of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Additional Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India is misconceived. It is well-settled law that no suit is maintainable for deciding the pensionary benefits of the Government servant. The Supreme Court has settled the law on the question that the only remedy is a writ petition before the High Court for a writ of mandamus in ease a Government servant has no grievance in the matter of payment of the pensionary benefits. The law on the point is settled as per judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has settled the law on the question that the only remedy is a writ petition before the High Court for a writ of mandamus in ease a Government servant has no grievance in the matter of payment of the pensionary benefits. The law on the point is settled as per judgment of the Supreme Court. It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on toe other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant, it was held that be a more executive order the State had no power to withheld the same, The objection of the learned Additional Senior Standing Counsel is, thus, ill-founded and is rejected, it is established from the facts on record that the petitioner since after his retirements in December, 1975 started sending applications after applications and reminders after reminders to the departmental authorities under whom he had worked for about 3 decades, it was only in 1984 that Writ Petition No. 16459 of 1984 was filed by him for a writ oi mandamus. He was prosecuting the writ petition and at the time of final disposal of the writ petition the respondents made a statement so that the writ petition may be become infructuous, The petitioner again started running from pillar to post as he was not getting any relief. It is after 3 years of the first writ petition he was compelled to file the writ petition No. 24946 of 1988 before this Court. The respondents again played the same old game and the petition was disposed of with a direction that the matter about payment of pension be decided within specific period. As already mentioned, at no occasion the respondents stated or boldly pointed out before the Court that the petitioner is not entitled for any pension as he had not completed the minimum of 10 years' qualifying period for grant of pension. Their stand had been that the matter would be decided by the Accountant General. After the contempt petition, it appears that the order of the Accountant General which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-16 to the Writ petition, saw the day of light. Their stand had been that the matter would be decided by the Accountant General. After the contempt petition, it appears that the order of the Accountant General which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-16 to the Writ petition, saw the day of light. It is clear from the facts and circumstances that the Accountant General before passing she order impugned neither had given opportunity to the petitioner nor had complete and full record concerning the petitioner at the time of passing the orders in the matter of petitioner's payment of pension. The petitioner categorically stated as a fact that before the examination conducted by the department concerned in 1963 for the Technical Assistants, the petitioner had already put in 16 years' service with the department. The Public Works Department of the State of U. P. is not a temporary department and is one of the permanent departments of the State Government. It is not known why and under what circumstances a person who was appointed in 1946 and also granted increments and promotion etc. from time to time was. allowed to continue for a period of more than 16 years without any orders for confirmation to the substantive post. It is for the department concerned and the responsible officers of the same department to seek orders from the Government, if was necessary, for regularising the person who has been working in the department for 16 years or more without any order for confirmation. It is unjust that a person may work in the department which is a permanent department of the State without any fault of his as a purely temporary employee, not entitled for any pensionary benefit. If the higher officers of the department and the Government have no care or interest in the matters of such employees it would be a sorry state of affairs. There are certain Government Orders issued from time to time. One of such orders annexed with the writ petition is Annexure-7 which provides such benefits to the temporary Government servants for pensionary benefits or other benefits in case of death of such employees. It is quoted in the said Government Order No. Kha-3-1152/10-915-89, dated 1-7-1989 that no temporary Government servant is entitled for any pensionary benefit unless the post on which he was working was a permanent/substantive post. It is quoted in the said Government Order No. Kha-3-1152/10-915-89, dated 1-7-1989 that no temporary Government servant is entitled for any pensionary benefit unless the post on which he was working was a permanent/substantive post. If such a temporary employee whose matter about regularisation could not be finalised in spite of the Government Orders and such employee retired from service or died in harness, such Government employee would be entitled for pensionary benefits provided they have completed a minimum of 10 years' qualifying service. It is not disputed that the petitioner worked in a permanent department of the State and the post of Technical Assistant and the post of Junior Engineer to which he was later promoted is of substantive promanent post in the department. The question for consideration is that whether he ad completed 10 years minimum qualifying service as per the Govern-nun. Order referred to above and also the same period as provided in Regulation 474 (A) and 474 (B) of the U. P. Civil Service Regulations. This was a factual aspect to be adjudicated on the basis of the record of the parent department of the Public Works where the petitioner had worked for more than 3 decades. As already stated in the earlier writ petition of 1984 and 1988, the respondents never stated that the petitioner was not entitled for payment of pension for want of minimum qualifying service period. Rather, it was stated that the matter is before the Accountant General, U.P. Thus, this stand that the petitioner has not put in minimum qualifying service period. Steps for grant of pension appears to have been taken for the first time by the Accountant General in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition. The averments on record clearly shows that the petitioner on the date of appearing in the said examination of Technical Assistants in 1963 had already put in 16 years service. This fact has not been controverted by the department concerned. The Accountant General in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition admitted that they are only concerned with the record furnished by the parent department of the employee whose pension matter they decide. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that he served for 16 years before the said examination of 1963 for Technical Assistants stands un-rebutted and proved. The Accountant General in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition admitted that they are only concerned with the record furnished by the parent department of the employee whose pension matter they decide. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that he served for 16 years before the said examination of 1963 for Technical Assistants stands un-rebutted and proved. Admittedly, the result of the examination of 1963 for Technical Assistants was declared and petitioner was declared successful but the Chief Engineer, P. W. D. by order dated 2.1.1973 directed that the petitioner and other persons enumerated in the said order are appointed to the temporary post of Technical Assistant w. e. f. the date of their joining in the division to which they have been posted by the Superintending Engineer. It appears to be a peculiar step taken by the aforesaid Chief Engineer of the department for passing orders for appointment of the person (Petitioner) to the post of Technical Assistant on which he had already been working for about 26 years on the date of passing of the said order. It was nothing but an order similar to unfair trade practice commonly practised by the employers of industrial concerns run by the private managing bodies. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Chander Yadav in writ petition No. 16459 of 1984 on behalf of the Public Works Department, Azamgarh, it was stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner's services were regularised w.e.f. 1-8-1968 as before that he was wholly a temporary servant on a temporary post created for a particular establishment of the department for a particular period. This allegation was made in the writ petition of 1984 filed by the petitioner without any basis. The respondent-department had no record or material to substantiate their case that the petitioner was regularised on 1-3-1968 Neither is there any such order on record nor any material before the Court not they filed any affidavit controverting the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner had been serving the department for about 30 years and on the date of examination for Technical Assistants in 1963 he had already put in 16 years' service. The position in law is that the officiating service or the temporary period of service rendered by an employee in a department shall also be taken into consideration in matters of confirmation. The position in law is that the officiating service or the temporary period of service rendered by an employee in a department shall also be taken into consideration in matters of confirmation. In AIR 1984 SC 1527 : G.P. Doval and others v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and others, the Supreme Court while considering the case of seniority of a Government servant observed: "Therefore, in the absence of any specific rule of seniority governing a cadre or a service, it is well-settled that length of continuous officiation will provide a more objective and fair rule of seniority. And that is exactly what the model in the memorandum prescribes. It says that seniority in service shall generally be determined from the date of substantive appointment to a service. If the rule were to stop here, the question would arise what constitutes substantive appointment to a post within the purview of the Public Service Commission ? But the rule does not stop by merely saying that the seniority shall generally be determined from the date of substantive appointment to a service. It further provides that it may be determined commencing from the date of the order of the first appointment, but proceeds to qualify the last clause by providing if such appointment is followed by confirmation. In other words, a rule for determining seniority may provide length of continuous officiation from substantive appointment or from the date of the order of the first appointment if such appointment is followed by confirmation. In the latter, case, once confirmation is made and the service till then is uninterrupted and continuous it relates back to the date of the order of the first appointment. Now model Rule 11 suggests as guidelines two independent principles for determining seniority, namely (i) seniority be recknoned from the date of substantive appointment and (2) from the date of the order of first appointment, if such appointment is followed by confirmation. Two different starting points for recokoning seniority are set out in the model and it is difficult to assume that a department adopted one and rejected the other without making a specific rule in that behalf". Two different starting points for recokoning seniority are set out in the model and it is difficult to assume that a department adopted one and rejected the other without making a specific rule in that behalf". Again, the Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the said judgment observed as under: "If a stop-gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his past service". In AIR 1967 SC 1301 , D.R. Nim v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that when an officer has worked for long period as in this case for nearly 15 to 20 years on a post and had never been reverted, it cannot be held that the officer's continuous functioning was mere temporary or local or stop-gap arrangement even though the order of appointment states so. In such circumstances, the entire period of functioning is to be counted for seniority. Any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles M and 16 (1) of the Constitution because temporary service on the post in question is not for a short period intended to meet some emergency or unforeseen circumstances. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court fully applies to the present case of the petitioner also. It has not been stated that the petitioner was ever reverted, removed or suspended while working as Technical Assistant since 1946 to 1973 or till the date of his retirement. No doubt, the principle as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not a matter where seniority of an employee was being 'decided. To my mind, the principle would fully be applicable in case of an employee of a permanent department like the present in consideration where the petitioner had been working. The case of D. R. Nim (supra) was considered and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 638 , Narendra Chaddha and others v. Union of India others. I hold that the petitioner should have been treated to have been regularised on his completion of 3 years service from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 3-6-1949 (he was initially appointed on 3-6-1946). I hold that the petitioner should have been treated to have been regularised on his completion of 3 years service from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 3-6-1949 (he was initially appointed on 3-6-1946). The finding of the Accountant General in the order impugned dated 2-3-1990 that the petitioner had not served for minimum 10 years' qualifying service entitling him to the pensionary benefits is liable to be quashed. 13. After considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the Public Works Department in question dealt with the petitioner, a retired employee of the department shabbily and negligently. The department had no care or respect for their own retired employee who was starving without any emoluments after 30 years' of Government service The department/unreasonably delayed the matter of payment of pension to the petitioner which is highly unjust. The petitioner, thus, is entitled for payment of interest on the amount of arrears of pension to which he is found entitled to at the rate of 12 per cent. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the order dated 2-3-1990 (Annexure-16 with (he writ petition) passed by the Lekhadhikari Vidhik Prakosth, A.G. Office, Allahabad, is quashed. The respondent-Accountant General, U. P. Lekha-II P. R. I, Allahabad and Sri C. V. Awadhani, Accountant General, II P. R. I, Allahabad are directed to calculate the pension of the petitioner treating him to have been regularised on the substantive post w.e.f. 4-3-1949 on the post of Technical Assistant in the department of the Public Works, Azamgarh, State of U. P., and subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 5-1-73 within a period of 2 months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order and respondents No. 1 to 7 are directed to pay the arrears of the pension so calculated within a period of next 2 months from the date of the order of the Accountant General-respondent. Further, the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner alongwith the arrears of pension. The respondents are directed to pay current amount of pension immediately after orders of the Accountant General respondent, which he has been directed to pass within 2 months from the date of filing of this order. The respondents are directed to pay current amount of pension immediately after orders of the Accountant General respondent, which he has been directed to pass within 2 months from the date of filing of this order. The parties shall bear own costs.