(1) HAVING regard to the office report dated 12/9/1995 the application for substitution of legal representatives of Respondents 1 and 8 is dismissed for non- prosecution. As regards Respondent 10 we find that she was not impleaded as a party when the special leave petition was filed in 1988 and an application was submitted for impleading her as a party on 27/4/1995 and before that date Respondent 10 had died. An application has been filed to bring on record her legal representatives. No steps have been taken for service of the substitution application on the legal representatives. The said applications for impleadment of Respondent 10 as well as substitution are also dismissed for non-prosecution. As regards Respondent 2, Mr S.K. Verma, we Find that in the impugned judgment of the High court it is mentioned that Mr S.K. Verma expired on 9/5/19888 leaving Smt Nirmala Verma as his legal representative and that the application for substitution of Smt Nirmala Verma as the legal representative of Mr S.K. Verma was allowed by the High court on 12/5/1988. Smt Nirmala Verma, however, has not been impleaded as a party in the appeal and Mr S.K. Verma, (who was dead) was impleaded as Respondent 2. The appeal filed against Mr S.K. Verma, Respondent 2 is, therefore, not maintainable. The appeal against Respondents 1 and 8 will stand dismissed as having abated and as regards Respondent 2 it is treated as not maintainable. It survives against Respondents 3 to 7 and 9. (2) WE have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents on the appeal. (3) THE appeal relates to the payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to Judges of the High court who retired prior to 1/10/1974. By the impugned judgment the High court has held that DCRG is payable to such Judges in view of Rule 2 of the High court Judges (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) since the members of the Indian Administrative Service are entitled to the said benefit under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. By the impugned judgment the High court has held that DCRG is payable to such Judges in view of Rule 2 of the High court Judges (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) since the members of the Indian Administrative Service are entitled to the said benefit under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. (4) THE learned Additional Solicitor General has fairly invited our attention to the decision of this court in Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, wherein it has been held that the benefit of leave encashment would be available to Judges of the High court in view of Rule 2 of the Rules. Having regard to the principles laid down in the said decision of this court we are in agreement with the view of the High court that in view of Rule 2 of the Rules the High court Judges who retired prior to 1/10/1974 were also entitled to avail the DCRG benefit that was available to an officer of the Indian Administrative Service in the rank of the secretary to the State government who is governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. (5) THE High court has awarded interest @ 12% on the amount of gratuity which was denied to the respondents. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said direction given by the High court. (6) WITH regard to the payment of ad hoc relief apart from the pension the High court has referred to government order dated 29/8/1977 which shows that ad hoc relief was given from 1/1/1973 to Judges who retired prior to 1/10/1974. The High court has also pointed out that the said payment had been made to some of the respondents while it was denied to other respondents similarly situate. The High court was, in our opinion, justified in giving the directions regarding payment of ad hoc relief to Respondents 3,4,7,8 and 9. (7) RESPONDENT 8 had served as a Judge of the High court for six years and seven months while Respondent 9 had served for six years and five months. The period of service of both the respondents was less than seven years. (7) RESPONDENT 8 had served as a Judge of the High court for six years and seven months while Respondent 9 had served for six years and five months. The period of service of both the respondents was less than seven years. Placing reliance upon its judgment in Deoki Nandan Agarwala v. Union of India, the High court has held that Judges who had not completed seven years of service would also be entitled to benefit of pension provided they had rendered service for more than four years. The said view of the High court in the case of Deoki Nandan Agarwala has been reversed by this court in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwala. (8) IN view of the said decision of this court the judgment of the High court based on the decision in the case of Deoki Nandan Agarwala cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. (9) THE appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the judgment of the High court to the extent it holds that Respondent 9 can avail the pensionary benefit on the basis of the judgment of the High court in Deoki Nandan Agarwala is set aside. The rest of the judgment of the High court is upheld. No costs.