K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, Hardai was the wife of Dafedarhar Chand. She filed the present writ petition seeking family pension. In the writpetition, there is no prayer for the grant of family pension from any particular date. According to the petitioner her husband joined the Army on 1. 5. 1911 and retiredon 16. 11. 1921; he was a Dafedar in Unit 7th Hariana Lancers. It is stated in the Writpetition that she was married to Harchand in the year 1920, prior to his dischargefrom the Army. On his retirement from the Army Harchand was getting a pensionof Rs. 9. 00 per month (a considerable sum having regard to the then purchasingpower of the rupee ). Harchand died on 14. 11. 1972. In the year 1977, a scheme wasintroduced for the payment of family pension for those who retired prior to the year1964. According to the petitioner, the minimum family pension was Rs. 196. 00 in theyear 1977 which was increased to Rs. 375. 00 per month w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. Petitionersubmitted the necessary papers for the purpose of the grant of family pension toher. On 16. 11. 1987, petitioner was told (as per Annexure b ) that her case wasbeing considered. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has not stated in the writ petition as to when she submitted thepapers seeking the pension. She has filed a copy of her affidavit dated 12. 3. 1987wherein she gave the date of her marriage with Harchand as 21. 2. 1922. In view ofthis affidavit, her request for the grant of pension was turned down, because at thattime, no family pension was payable in the case of the Army Personnel whomarried after he retired from the service. Further, the factum of Harchand smarriage was not noted in any of the relevant Army records. Accordingly, orderrejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension was issued on 26. 8. 1987 (Annexure 1 ). This was reiterated in another communication issued in September,1987, after the petitioner wrote back stating that her marriage was in the year 1920. Petitioner also filed another affidavit in this regard. In the writ petition also,petitioner has averred that her marriage with Harchand was. performed on21. 2. 1920 and they had a daughter born on 2. 10. 1921 and the date of the marriagewas wrongly typed as 21. 2. Petitioner also filed another affidavit in this regard. In the writ petition also,petitioner has averred that her marriage with Harchand was. performed on21. 2. 1920 and they had a daughter born on 2. 10. 1921 and the date of the marriagewas wrongly typed as 21. 2. 1922 in the first affidavit filed before the authoritieswhile seeking the pension. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of this writ petition petitioner died on 4. 11. 1988. Herlegal representatives came on record, thereafter. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, a family pension of Rs. 60. 00 permonth was paid for the period 20. 8. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985; the rate of pension wasincreased subsequently and w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 to 4. 11. 1988 it was Rs. 375. 00 per month. In C. M. 6915/1992, the L. R. s of the petitioner sought family pension for the periodbetween 14. 11. 1972 to 20. 9. 1972 to gether with interest thereon at the rate of 18% perannum and to increase the rate to Rs. 175. 00 per month. ( 5 ) AN order of this Court dated 18. 1. 1994 records that a sum of Rs. 27,418. 10has already been paid to the petitioner on 11. 5. 1992 towards interim ad hocpayment and that the petitioner questions the pension rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month. ( 6 ) A reply affidavit filed on 14. 7. 1993 on behalf of the respondents gives thebasis for the payment made. It is averred in this affidavit that in the year 1989 thegovernment relaxed the earlier requirement as to the marriage to be of the dateprior to the retirement and the pension scheme was extended even if the marriagetook place after the retirement of the personnel. The affidavit also refers to theincompleteness of the documents filed by the son of the petitioner after the latter s death and the resultant delay in the payment of the arrears. The basis for awardingthe family pension at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month is also given in this affidavit,which reads:- "in accordance with Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. F6 (2)85/1689/b/d (Pension/services) dated 8 Aug. 85 and letter No. 6 (7)/87/d (Pension/services) dt 5 Apr. 91 both att as R-1 (Collectively ). Armed Forcespersonnel who retired before 1964 are entitled for family pension only from 22 Sep. 77. 00 per month is also given in this affidavit,which reads:- "in accordance with Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. F6 (2)85/1689/b/d (Pension/services) dated 8 Aug. 85 and letter No. 6 (7)/87/d (Pension/services) dt 5 Apr. 91 both att as R-1 (Collectively ). Armed Forcespersonnel who retired before 1964 are entitled for family pension only from 22 Sep. 77. Since the family pension as per Govt. orders was made applicable only from22 Sep. 77, Late Smt. Hardai was not eligible for family pension for the period from14 Nov 72 to 21 Sep 77. Her claim, therefore, was correctly passed as per Govt. Orders on the subject. As regards the claim of the petitioner that she was paid onlyrs. 60. 00 PM instead of Rs. 175. 00 it is submitted that as per Government of India,ministry of Defence letter No. F6 (6)/86/d (Pension/services) dated 12 May 86, thepay scale applicable to Sepoys and JCOs were such that family pensioner is entitledonly to minimum of Rs. 60. 00 per month. Hence the widow is only entitled forfamily pension @ Rs. 60. 00 per month from 22 Sep 77 to 31 Dee 85 as per rulesmentioned above and not Rs. 175. 00 per month. It is further stated that all the familypensioners of pre-64 have been granted pension @ Rs. 60. 00 per month w. e. f. 22 Sep77 and also no interest has been paid to any claimant as there is no such provisionin the Government Rules. Further, as stated in para above, there was no delaywhatsoever in finalising the claim. What ever delay occurred it was not due to thefault of respondents, but it was due to delayed submission/ incomplete documentation of the claim by the petitioner. Hence respondents are not liable to pay anyinterest. " ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS rely on the Government order dated 8. 8. 1985 (Annexure R-1)which contains the order granting the family pension. Earlier, pension was payableto those who had contributed two months emoluments or who. surrendered anequal amount out of DCRG. This condition as to contribution was dispensed withfrom 22. 9. 1977. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners wouldnow contribute the aforesaid two months emoluments so that the family pensioncould be granted from the very date of the death of Harchand. surrendered anequal amount out of DCRG. This condition as to contribution was dispensed withfrom 22. 9. 1977. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners wouldnow contribute the aforesaid two months emoluments so that the family pensioncould be granted from the very date of the death of Harchand. I do not find anyprovision under which the contribution can be done by the widow or the legalrepresentatives with retrospective effect. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the respondents are justified in confining the grant ofpension w. e. f. 22. 9. 1977. ( 10 ) PETITIONER has not pointed out as to how the rate of pension should be morethan Rs. 60. 00 per month. Monetary claims should be supported by propersupporting material. On the basis of affidavits of the petitioner and her L. R. S, it isnot possible to direct the respondents to pay to them out of public funds. The writjurisdiction is not so comprehensive as to make it a jurisdiction of charity. Equityto be applied is to be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not enable it tolegislate or to reformulate the policy of the Government. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that denial of the familypension from the date of Harchand s death till 22. 9. 1977 is discriminatory. According to the learned Counsel, concept of family pension involves grant of pensionimmediately on the death of the pension holder. ( 12 ) PENSION is not a mere bounty. At the same time, it is payable by virtue of some law (or order having the force of law ). In working out the scheme of pension,if there is any arbitrariness, this Court may intervene to remove the vitiatingelement. Earlier the scheme of family pension required some contribution to bemade by the erstwhile Government employee. This requirement of contributionwas removed only w. e. f. 22. 9. 1977. Till 22. 9. 1977 family pension could be grantedonly as per the scheme then in force. Earlier the scheme of family pension required some contribution to bemade by the erstwhile Government employee. This requirement of contributionwas removed only w. e. f. 22. 9. 1977. Till 22. 9. 1977 family pension could be grantedonly as per the scheme then in force. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India: (1983) 2 SLR 246, in supportof his contention that pension is not a bounty but given in consideration of pastservice and any scheme for the grant of pension should be liberally construed infavour of the person seeking pension. The proposition, as such, no doubt flowsfrom the enunciation of the relevant principles by the Supreme Court. But, in theinstant case, the principles stated by the Supreme Court are to be applied in themanner the Supreme Court applied the principles to the facts before the Supremecourt. The Supreme Court did not say that the scheme of pension should be maderetrospective under the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that benefit of thescheme should be extended to all the pensioners from the date when the benefit wasgranted to a few. In other words, in applying the scheme there shall not be anydiscrimination between one class of pensioners and another depending upon thedate of the retirement of the pensioners. The scheme should be extended to thepensioners who retired prior to the date of the scheme; but the benefit is to begranted only from the specified date , which was the date from which others weregranted pension. In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering theapplicability of the revised formula for computation of pension. The petitionersbefore the Supreme Court had retired in or about the year 1972, and were drawingcertain amount of pensions. Pension Rules were liberalised and a new formula wasintroduced in May 1979; this formula was made applicable only to the employeesof the Government who retired after 31/03/1979. The specified date therefore was 1. 4. 1979/31. 3. 1979. Petitioners challenged this restriction whichdenied the benefit of the revised formulate them who retired prior to 31. 3. 1979. The Supreme Court held that there can be no valid criterion on which classificationof pensioners retiring prior to specific date and retiring subsequent to that date canbe made. The specified date therefore was 1. 4. 1979/31. 3. 1979. Petitioners challenged this restriction whichdenied the benefit of the revised formulate them who retired prior to 31. 3. 1979. The Supreme Court held that there can be no valid criterion on which classificationof pensioners retiring prior to specific date and retiring subsequent to that date canbe made. However, while striking down the basis of the classification, the Supremecourt made it clear that "arrears are not required to made". At page 265, in para49 the Supreme Court held:- "but we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be madebecause to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners wheneverthey retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because thescheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would beoperative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under itsumbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to thatdate. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, theirpension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And thatwould take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it wouldmake a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because theemoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per therecommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission ). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of averageemoluments under amended Rule may raise the average emoluments, theperiod for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly under higher pension and if someone reachesthe maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justlydue on computation. The words who were in service on 31/03/1979,and retiring from service on or after that date" excluding the date forcommencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischiefand are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance and can be severed without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed. " ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel REFERRED TO to para 2 (b) of the letter dated 12/08/1986 (Annexure R-2) under which it was directed that family pension shall be paidto the families of Armed Forces personnel who retired or died before 1. 1. 1964 andwho were otherwise not covered by the family pension scheme. The letter gavecertain instruments on the subject. The relevant sub-para relied upon by thelearned Counsel is as follows:- "pay for Calculation of Family Persion:as the pay scales applicable to the OR and some of the JCOs and equivalentranks in Navy and Air Force were such that family pension would be entitledat the minimum of Rs. 60. 00 p. m. (Rs. 44. 00 for Reservists), it has been decidedthat in respect of personnel below officers ranks, CDA (P) will sanctionminimum family pension at Rs. 60. 00 p. m. (Rs. 44. 00 in case of Reservists) inall cases where pay particulars or presumptive pay has not been indicated bythe Record Offices. If subsequently the pay details or the presumptive pay isavailable, on the basis of which family pension at higher rates would beadmissible, the Record offices will furnish revision claim while giving fulldetails. In the cases of JCOs and equivalent ranks in Navy and Air Force andofficers where the pay or presumptive pay is not available the average ofminimum and the maximum of the pay entitled in that rank/group may betaken as a basis for calculating the family pension. Such average pay will beintimated by the Record 0ffices/ Services HQrs to CDA (P) in the pensionclaims. " ( 15 ) I fail to understand, how the above instruction helps the petitioner. In factfamily pension of Rs. 60. 00 per month has been paid to the petitioner with effectfrom 20. 9. 1977 till 31. 12. 1985 and thereafter it was revised and a further revisionw. e. f. 1. 11. 1986 at Rs. 375. 00 per month. The petitioner died on 4. 11. 1988. ( 16 ) THE L. R. s of the petitioner seek a direction for payment of family pension w. e. f. 14. 11. 1972 to 20. 9. 1977 and this claim is made on the ground that the husbandof the petitioner died on 14. 11. 1972. 1986 at Rs. 375. 00 per month. The petitioner died on 4. 11. 1988. ( 16 ) THE L. R. s of the petitioner seek a direction for payment of family pension w. e. f. 14. 11. 1972 to 20. 9. 1977 and this claim is made on the ground that the husbandof the petitioner died on 14. 11. 1972. Admittedly, there was no provision forpayment of family pension w. e. f. 14. 11. 1972; no scheme was in force for paymentof family pension on the said date. The family pension was payable under therelevant scheme only w. e. f. 20. 9. 1977. If so, the scheme cannot be made retrospective by compelling the payment of pension earlier to the said date. ( 17 ) THE delay involved in the release of the pension cannot be attributed to therespondents. Petitioner was responsible in giving the date of the marriage as21. 2. 1922. This was after the retirement of the personnel; the husband of thepetitioner had been discharged from service on 16. 11. 1921. The Government orderproviding for the family pension was inapplicable to the case where the marriagetook place after the retirement. When this was brought to the notice of thepetitioner, she asserted that the marriage was prior to the retirement of herhusband. In the year 1989, Government issued orders as per letter No. 6 (7)/87/d (Pensioners/service) dated 2. 6. 1989 to the effect that marriage solemnised by thearmed Forces Personnel after retirement also will be recognised for the grant ofordinary family pension, subject to certain conditions. Petitioner has been grantedthe pension thereafter w. e. f. 20. 9. 1977. In the circumstances, I am of the view thatthis is not a case to award any interest to the L. R. S of the petitioner. As no cause of action survives for consideration, the writ petition is dismissedwithout any order as to costs.