JUDGMENT The petitioner No. 1, C.B.L. Shrivastava, was Chief Municipal Officer, in the Municipal Council, Damoh, and the petitioner No. 2, R.S. Khanwalkar, was Office superintendent, in the same Municipal Council. The petitioner No. 1 retired from service w.e.f. 1.1.1984 and the petitioner No. 2 has been retired on 1.12.1986. The petitioners were recruited to the Municipal Service and have been retired after completing their age of superannuation. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to get all the benefits in relation to pension and gratuity as applicable to the government servants by virtue of rule 23 (2) of the Municipal Employees (Recruitment of Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, which reads as under :-- "(2) The Madhya Pradesh New Pension rules, 1951 and the Madhya Pradesh Class-IV Service (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules, 1956, as amended from time to time, in so far as they relate to gratuity and pension shall apply to all municipal employees : Provided that - (a) This provision shall apply to municipal employees of any council from such date as the State Government, may by an order in writing, specify for such council and different dates may be specified for different councils; (b) The period of service rendered before the date specified as per proviso (a) above will count for pension and gratuity, if admissible under the rules quoted in rules 23 (2) above; (c) The municipal employees in service on the date to be specified under proviso (a) above shall have an option of remaining to be governed by the rule relating to Contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and pension, applicable to them immediately before the said date such option shall be exercised by them within a period of three months from the date of publication in Gazette or before they retire from service, whichever is earlier. The option once exercised shall be final and if a municipal employee does not give his option within the prescribed period, the provision of this rule shall apply to him." Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this rule was amended and substituted on 4.5.70 and is applicable to the case of the petitioners who retired after this date. The case of the petitioners is that they are being paid pension but increased allowance have not been granted despite the notification issued by the State Government, Annexure-P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5. The case of the petitioners is that they are being paid pension but increased allowance have not been granted despite the notification issued by the State Government, Annexure-P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5. There has been an increase of 135% D.A. by the State Govt. The grievance of the petitioners is that by Annexure-P/2 dated 8.11.1987 the basic pension of the Government employees as on 31.12.85 was enhanced by 135% whereas in the case of the Municipal Pensioners it was enhanced by 127%. Subsequently, by an order dt 27.4.88 (Annexure-P/3) dearness allowance payable to the Govt. pensioners was enhanced from 8% to 13% w.e.r. 1.7.1987 but no such enhancement was granted to the Municipal pensioners. Thereafter, by order dt. 30.9.88 the dearness allowance was increased from 13% to 18% but the Municipal Pensioners were deprived of the benefit. Similarly, by order dt. 31.12.88 (Annexure-PIS) dearness allowance was enhanced from 18% to 28% but no such enhancement was made in the case of the Municipal pensioners. It is alleged that despite the notifications issued by the Govt. the said difference is not being paid to the petitioners and as such they are suffering monetary loss. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are lawfully entitled to get the increased dearness allowance. The respondents have not entered appearance despite service nor the State Govt. has filed any return in this case. The different in regard to the dearness allowance for the period stated in para. 8 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the petition and stated in para. 5 above shall be calculated by the respondents and the same be paid within three months from today. The petition is allowed, but without any order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be paid to the petitioners.