M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE short issue involved is one on some significance insofar as the petitioner before me is a retired member of the teaching profession. He opted for the u. g. c. scales of salary which meant that some revision had to be done and he was entitled to receive the arrears. He has retired in the year 1991 and when the arrears came to be ultimately paid, it was split into two portions. The petitioner was issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 7,620/-, dated 8-2-1994 and as regards the balance amount of Rs. 8,000/- he was given a pay order of the same date which was addressed to the post master of the basaveshwaranagar post office, Bangalore which amount was to be invested in national saving certificates. There is no dispute about the fact that this was pursuant to a government order which had been issued in culmination of various negotiations and correspondence with the federation. The government had directed that a certain portion of the arrears should be invested in the national savings schemes and obviously this step was well-intentioned as often when lump sum arrears are paid, the government takes the view that it is highly desirable that these amounts should not be just spent away and that they should be reinvested in the form of savings. For this purpose, directions are invariably issued that the whole or some portions of these arrears must be invested either in the provident fund or other forms of savings. ( 2 ) THE controversy has arisen because the petitioner contends that the government acting on representations from other teachers who had retired prior to 1990 has taken a decision that those who have retired prior to 30-3-1990 should be paid the entire amount of arrears in cash and that it is only in the case of the subsequent category of persons namely those who had retired after that date or are in service, that the proportional investment will have to be made. The petitioner states that he is a retired person and that his financial need is extremely real and genuine. He states that the six year national saving certificates will mature only in the year 2000 a. d. and that consequently it is both harsh and unreasonable to force him to have to invest the amount of Rs. 8,000/ -. The petitioner states that he is a retired person and that his financial need is extremely real and genuine. He states that the six year national saving certificates will mature only in the year 2000 a. d. and that consequently it is both harsh and unreasonable to force him to have to invest the amount of Rs. 8,000/ -. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has submitted that the dividing line which has been drawn as on 30-3-1990 is, artificial and unreal insofar as it seeks to make an arbitrary classification between two categories of retired employees without there being any rationale basis for this. Secondly what he contends is that the amount of arrears is the entitlement of the petitioner and that this cannot be forcibly taken away from him and invested without his consent. Thirdly what he submitted is that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of the emoluments in cash and that therefore the decision is bad. ( 4 ) THE action is defended by the learned government Advocate who initially argued that the money has not been taken away from the petitioner but that it has only been invested in national savings for a very good reason. She submits that when the arrears are paid, some amount thereof must be reinvested so that it can be channelised for purposes of various development activities. On facts, she has pointed out that the federation had agreed to the deposit of this amount and that the petitioner is completely bound by that agreement because he was a member of the federation. The learned government Advocate has also submitted that the reason why the government made a distinction as on 30-3-1990 is because persons who have retired earlier to that date are in a separate class insofar as they are older and their immediate needs are more genuine and more stringent than their younger counter-parts. She therefore submits that the distinction or classification is perfectly valid and justified and that it is wrong to attack it on grounds of arbitrariness. ( 5 ) AS far as the aspect of classification is concerned, it is very necessary to record that the government hardly sets out any justification for treating 30-3-1990 as a cut-off date. She therefore submits that the distinction or classification is perfectly valid and justified and that it is wrong to attack it on grounds of arbitrariness. ( 5 ) AS far as the aspect of classification is concerned, it is very necessary to record that the government hardly sets out any justification for treating 30-3-1990 as a cut-off date. What needs to be noted is that the decision was taken in the year 1993 and if the intention as professed was that relief should be given to persons because of their age and need, then the government ought to have classified all retired persons into one group and those who have not retired into another. In the absence of doing this, I fail to see the rationale being fixing 30-3-1990 as the cut-off date, because as has been demonstrated by the learned advocate, the financial need of the petitioner who has retired in the year 1991 is as grave and as stringent as those of person who have retired in the preceding year. I am unable therefore to accept the soundness of the ground of classification as far as this date is concerned and in any event, the same cannot be pressed into operation as far as the present petitioner is concerned. ( 6 ) AS far as the larger question of estoppel is concerned, what one needs to take note of is the fact that it may be for good reason, the government and the federation entered into an agreement with regard to the investment. To my mind, however the terms of that general agreement cannot override the individual and personal rights of the petitioner learned government Advocate has argued that these rights are subservient to the terms of the agreement but that is not the correct position in law. The amounts receivable by the petitioner in this case represent arrears of salary and to that extent they are synonymous with wages. One needs to take note of the fact that for various procedural reasons the revision which ought to have been given effect to at an earlier point of time has seen the light of the day after the lapse of several years. The fault if any, lies with the government and the authorities who have kept the matter pending. Merely because a lump sum payment is to be made, it is sought to be compulsorily invested. The fault if any, lies with the government and the authorities who have kept the matter pending. Merely because a lump sum payment is to be made, it is sought to be compulsorily invested. If the employee agrees to this arrangement, there is absolutely no difficulty but if an employee refuses to be bound by it, the government cannot force the employee to invest the amount by refusing to make payments of the amounts. One needs to take cognizance of the fact that wage revisions and arrears of salary are granted to offset the inflationary trend. What needs to be taken note of is that these amounts are granted to him after the petitioner has withstood the effects of inflation over a period of time and are therefore more in the nature of belated compensation. Under these circumstances, there is precious little justification even as far as the concept of compulsory investment is concerned. ( 7 ) IN the light of this situation, as far as the present petitioner is concerned to my mind he is entitled to demand that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- which was wrongfully withheld must be paid to him in cash. The petitioner has stated that the cheque made out in the name of the post master has been retained by him. It is directed that the respondents issue a pay order to the petitioner for the equivalent amount of Rs. 8,000/- in lieu of the cheque within a period of 30 days from today. It is made explicit, that these directions shall be conveyed to the concerned officers and if there is any default with regard to the time frame, that the respondents shall then be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum compounded starting from the date on which the amount was originally due upto the date when it is actually paid apart from other action which this court may consider it necessary to take against the defaulting respondents. These directions are issued in view of the fact that the petitioner is an old, aged person and the court does not desire that he should undergo any more trauma on this count. Since the certified copy of the judgment may take sometime, office to forthwith furnish an ordinary copy of the same to the parties if they apply for it. The petition accordingly succeeds. Since the certified copy of the judgment may take sometime, office to forthwith furnish an ordinary copy of the same to the parties if they apply for it. The petition accordingly succeeds. Rule is made absolute to this extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .