Judgment :- 1. The petitioners who are retired employees of the Armed Forces have been re-employed in establishments of the State Government and public sector undertakings. In these petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India they impugn the validity of the orders of the Central Government by which the payment of relief on pension earned upon retirement from the armed forces, has been suspended during the period of re-employment. In this judgment the petitioners shall be referred to as ex-servicemen or pensioners. I. THE FACTS 2. The facts fall in a narrow compass and are un controverter. As is well known, employees in the armed forces retire at a relatively young age. The Central Government has a number of schemes designed to provide employment to ex-service men, by relaxation of age and qualifications and by preferential treatment. In pursuance of these schemes, the petitioners, upon their retirement, have been re-employed in different public sector undertakings such as the nationalised banks, National Cadet Corps, establishments of the State Governments and so on. Upon their retirement from the Armed Forces the petitioners earned pension. They also receive an allowance known as "relief on pension" which is in the nature of Dearness Allowance paid to the serving employees. After their re-employment the petitioners continued to receive the pension earned by them together with the relief on the pension. They also receive salary plus the dearness allowance in their re-employment. The pay in the re-employed position was fixed after deducting the amount of pension. However, it is unnecessary to refer to the details like the ignorable amount of pension and the deductible amount of pension. 3. The Central Government has interest in all the public sector undertakings. It is concerned with the burden on the exchequer arising out of the payment of relief on pension, in addition to the dearness allowance paid to the re-employed ex-service men. Therefore, the Central government considered that the Ex-service men are paid relief against erosion of money value at two points. By a number of memoranda and circulars the Central Government issued instructions in regard to the payment and/or suspension of relief on pension. Therefore, the Central government considered that the Ex-service men are paid relief against erosion of money value at two points. By a number of memoranda and circulars the Central Government issued instructions in regard to the payment and/or suspension of relief on pension. The memoranda No. F13(1)EV(A)/74 dated 6th April, 1974 and 271h August, 1974, the memorandum No. F.10(26)-B(TR)/76 dated 29th December, 1976, and the memorandum of the Ministry of Finance bearing No. M/23013/152/79/ MP/VI(Pt)/1118 dated 26th March, 1984 in substance, suspended the payment of relief on pension to the re-employed ex-service men. Another memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions bearing No. 2/5/87-PIC dated 22nd April, 1987 on the subject of "Grant of Dearness Relief to Pensioners" is significant for its definition of pension and family pension. Broadly slated pension/family pension has been defined to mean "the basic pension/basic family pension as the case may be." The Controller, Defence Accounts, Allahabad issued circulars Nos. AT/ORS/Tcch/263-VI and AT/ORS/263-VII dated respectively 23-1-1989 and 15-3-1989 directing that the payment of relief on pension be slopped forthwith except in those cases where the High Courts had issued orders of slay. II QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 4. The following points were urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. (i) Pension is the compensation or reward for past services. It is a proprietary right of a retired employee. The relief on pension is the amount added to the original pension to make up for the loss of its value due to inflation and erosion of the value of rupee. Relief on pension is therefore a part of pension. (ii) Since pension is a right in property, its deprivation by the executive orders is illegal. (iii) All ex-service men who have been re-employed are not alike in their circumstances. The ex-service men in re-employment represent diverse groups of employees each distinguished by special circumstances. There are employees who secured re-employment not because of the schemes prescribing concessions to ex-service men but on their own merit. There are those who are employed on such a low scale of pay that stoppage of relief on pension reduces their incomes to poverty levels. Again there arc re-employed personnel on leave without pay for years and therefore not in receipt of any re-employment pay. The respondents have made a blanket order suspending payment of dearness relief, without regard to the circumstances of different classes of employees. Again there arc re-employed personnel on leave without pay for years and therefore not in receipt of any re-employment pay. The respondents have made a blanket order suspending payment of dearness relief, without regard to the circumstances of different classes of employees. The impugned orders are therefore arbitrary. III THE CONCEPT OF PENSION 5, The question whether the relief on pension is a part of pension has been considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ex-Pdsahlar Major's case (Ex-Risaldar Major Basfieshar Singh & Others v. Union of India & others (Civil Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1991), by the Delhi High Court in the case of National Ex-Service men Co-ordination Committee (National Ex-Service Men Co-ordination Committee & others v. Union of India & others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1966 of 1992) and by the Madras High Court in S. Venkatesan (S. Venkatesan & 69 others v. Union of India & others (W.A.No. 89 & 134 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 8805/1987 & other writ petitions). All these cases accepted that pension is compensation for the past services. Upon analysis of the reports of the Central Pay Commissions, the Punjab & Haryana, Madras and Delhi High Courts emphasised certain aspects of the relief on pension. They highlighted the factors like (a) the absence of a recommendation by the Pay Commissions that the relief on pension should be absorbed in pension,(b) that the relief on pension was always "considered" as a distinct clement of remuneration which may or may not be consolidated with the pension and (c) that the relief on pension was never "considered" or "treated" as part of the pension. In view of this perception of the idea of pension they held that relief on pension is not a part of the pension. "Treating" dearness relief as part of the pension, involves an element of fiction. The reason is that if pension, in its true character includes the relief granted to restore the lost value of pension, "treating" the relief as distinct from pension does not alter the true conception of pension. The fictional "treatment" does not help in determining the concept, character or content of pension itself. While I propose to bear in mind these judgments and the report of the Fourth Pay Commission from which I have immensely benefited, I propose to attempt a conceptual analysis of pension. The fictional "treatment" does not help in determining the concept, character or content of pension itself. While I propose to bear in mind these judgments and the report of the Fourth Pay Commission from which I have immensely benefited, I propose to attempt a conceptual analysis of pension. My endeavour is to understand, not the external form of the payment expressed as the basic pension plus the relief on pension, but to unravel what is the true character of the payment. 6. The Pension Act and the Rules relating thereto do not throw light on the questions arising in this case. I have therefore not referred to them. 7. The concept of pension originated as compensation to retired employees including members of the armed forces or their dependants, for old age, death or disability. The basic idea is to provide a sense of security and independence to the retired employee, and to make the service efficient. Art.39(a) of the Constitution of India introduced the directive to the State to secure to its cilices "adequate means of livelihood." If such citizen is an employee of the State, "it inheres in the concept of such a provision (pension) that it should be adequate (Report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Part II "Pension", Paras. 2.16 & 2.17). The object of pension is that even in retirement, the pensioner may live and maintain a standard of living considered reasonable by the society where he belongs. For this purpose costs of living adjustments to neutralise the increase in prices have to be made. This neutralisation of the erosion of the pensioner's buying capacity by payment of additional relief is a part of the concept of pension. The Fourth Pay Commission, aware that the concept of pension is not static, described the costs of living adjustments, which is another name for the relief on pension, as "a necessary concomitant of the very concept of pensionary benefits" (Report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Part II "Pension", Paras. 2.16 & 2.17). 8. Having summarised the concept of pension,! will now state its legal character enunciated by the Supreme Court. Once rules in regard to pension are framed receipt of pension within the rules is a legal right. (D.S. Nakara& others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130). 2.16 & 2.17). 8. Having summarised the concept of pension,! will now state its legal character enunciated by the Supreme Court. Once rules in regard to pension are framed receipt of pension within the rules is a legal right. (D.S. Nakara& others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130). Pension is a determined amount of money payable to an employee upon retirement or to a dependant upon the death of the employee in consideration of the past services. Pension has two objects. Firstly, it rewards the past service and secondly it is intended to save the employee from destitution in old age. It follows therefore that the pension is intended to ensure that the pensioner would (i) be able to live (ii) free from want, with decency, independence and self respect and (iii) at a standard nearly equal to his pre-retirement standard of living. (D.S. Nakara & others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130). 8. Again, pension is property of the retired employee. (Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1971 SC 1409). Consider the concept of pension and its purpose enunciated by D.S. Nakara (D.S. Nakara & others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130), and its legal character as property laid down in Deokinandan Prasad (Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1971 SC 1409). What emerges is the true picture of pension, as the amount intended to be adequate to enable the retired employee to live from from want, with decency, independence and self respect and at a standard, nearly equivalent to that at the pre-retirement level. It is reasonable to hold that the Central Government intended that the pensioner continues to receive pension with all its attributes declared in Nakara's case (D.S. Nakara & others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130).