R. B. MEHROTRA, J. Deceased/petitioner Uaulu Ram was appointed as "mason teacher" on 19 May, 1950 at Central Jail Izzatnagar, Bareilly. Ac cording to the then prevailing system the mason teacher for jail used to be appointed on contract basis for 5 years, and in that very sequence the peti tioner was continuously appointed on the basis of 5-5 years contract in diffe rent jails regularly as mason teacher. In this connection it is borneout from Annexure 1 of the counter affidavit dated 16 May, 1980 that as per terms of previous contracts the petitioner was on 21-2-1978 given a contract of 5 years appointment as mason teacher. 2. No rules have been framed under Article 3u9 of the Constitution or any other Act or departmental regulations regarding the post of mason teacher. Their services are not governed by any rules despite working for long spell of period in jail as mason teacher, such a person was not getting any pensionary benefits. The concerned persons drew the attention of the State Government in this connection about the mason teachers working on contract basis, conse quently the Government issued a memorandum on 26 April, 1982 in connec tion with the employees of jail industries and declared 22 posts of mason teacher and one post of "head Mechanic" of Unnao as pensionable. The said Government notification for sake of convenience is reproduced as under : "in connection with your letter 261/finance 216 dated 8 May,jl986,i have been directed to convey that from i April, 1981, the indus trial employees of jail 22 sanctioned post of mason teacher in the grade of 200-320 and one sanctioned post of head mechanic sewing machines in the grade of 380-460, which had been declared as per manent from 1 April, 1947 and 1 April, 1969 respectively. His Excellency the Governor has been pleased to sanction pensionary benefits to such persons. The future sanctioned permanent posts of jail industries will also carry pensionary benefits and such posts will not be filled up on contractual basis and the contracts which are in operation up to this time will be deemed to have come to an end. (2) The continuous contractual service of the above posts is on regular establishment basis temporally, will be entitled to pensionary bene fits in case the post is made permanent, if the service has been rendered without any break. (2) The continuous contractual service of the above posts is on regular establishment basis temporally, will be entitled to pensionary bene fits in case the post is made permanent, if the service has been rendered without any break. If there is any break between the two contractual periods or between the contract period and pen sionable service, then an account of such break, the entire previous period of service will not be counted towards pension and such a break period will not be curable as per provision of Article 422 of civil service regulations. (3) These orders are being issued in compliance of the sanction recorded in the orders of Finance Department No 13-3-557/ten-82 dated 15 April, 1982. " 3. It is undisputed between the parties that on the day the above mentioned Government order was published the petitioner was working as "mason teacher" on his post, there is further no dispute as regards the continuous service of the petitioner, on the basis of the above Government notification, the petitioner made a representation before Inspector General jail and made a prayer that in accordance with the above notification he also be paid pension, however, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and by order dated 30 September, 1982 a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the counter affidavit, the following order was passed regarding the petitioner : "with respect to the above subject on your letter No. 21910/2 (6) dated 31 August, 1982, I have been directed to convey that what pensionary benefits are not admissible to such employees who have completed the superannuation age of 58 years before 1 April. Hence for giving pensionary benefits to Badlu Ram mason teacher on completion of his age of 58 years it u not possible to extend the service from 1 July, 1980 to 31 May, 1982 as proposed". 4. Thereafter the petitioner has been representating to concerned autho rities in this connection and praying that for the whole life he has worked as "mason teacher" and in that regards he is entitled to the benefit envisaged in the Government notification. The respondents did not pay any heed to his representations consequently the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the relief that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued that res pondent to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The respondents did not pay any heed to his representations consequently the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the relief that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued that res pondent to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The writ petition was fixed for hearing before me for admission in the list 1 had mentioned clearly in my order dated 20-4-1994 that the petition is regarding pensionary benefits of service hence its hearing on merits is feasible at the stage of admission itself. In the writ petition on behalf of the respondents counter affidavit and supple mentary counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavits have been filed. As per rules of the Court with the consent of parties Advocate the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. It is unfortunate that the petitioner died during the pendency of writ consequently, the substitution ap plication of the wife of the petitioner has been allowed. She has been ordered to be substituted in place of the petitioner. 5. I have heard Sushri Archana Srivastava learned counsel for the peti tioner and the learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents. 6. The only point that arises for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits on the strength of Government order. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised two objections for giving pen sionary benefits to the petitioner- (1) That the petitioner was kept in service merely on the basis of contract. It was clearly mentioned in the contract pertaining to the petitioner that he is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner is bound by that contract, in this very connection in the contract between the petitioner and State Government it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits. According to learned standing counsel the petitioner in the teeth of the above contract, is not entitled to pensionary benefits. (2) The learned standing counsel has raised the other point that in any case the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 1 July, 1980 and according to the Government notification the mason teacher appointed on contractual basis have been allowed pensionable benefits in view of the publication dated 26 April, 1982 and by that date the petitioner had already completed the age of superannuation, hence the petitioner not entitled to the benefit of said notification. 7. 7. In D. S. Nahira v. Union of India, the Full Bench of Supreme Court has laid down as under with respect to pensionary benefits : 31. From the discussion three things emerge- (I) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Arti cle 3.)9 and clause (5) of Article 158 of the Constitution, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but is a payment for the past service rendered, and (iii) it is a social welfare measure render ing socio-economic justice to these who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in old age they will not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during the last three years of service reduced to ten months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon additional condition of impeaceable behaviour even subsequent to retirement that is since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as disciplinary measure. 36. Having set out clearly the society which we propose to set up the direction in which the State action must have the welfare estate which are proposed to build up the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist state and the assurance in the directive principles of State policy especially of security in old age at last to those who have rendered useful service during their active years it is not disputable nor was it questioned that pension as retirement benefit is in commence with and in furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a phillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare state because by pension the socialist goal of security of cradile to grave is assured at least when it is mostly needed and least available namely in the face of life. " 8. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a phillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare state because by pension the socialist goal of security of cradile to grave is assured at least when it is mostly needed and least available namely in the face of life. " 8. In the aforesaid judgment the Honble Supreme Court held the noti fication of Finance Department, dated 25-5-1991 to be arbitrary on the footing that aforesaid Government notification gave the benefit of revised pension scheme only to those who have not retired before the prescribed date. The date prescribed in the notification was held to be illegal and it was directed that the benefit of revised pension scheme will also be applicable to those per sons who have retired before the prescribed date. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officer Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 Page 767 the case of D. S. Nahara was analysed and the following ratio was laid down : "the question which this court was required to consider was whether this specified date attended Article 14 of the Constitution. This court in paragraph 30 (of SCO) paragraph 31 of AIR of the judg ment repelled the contention based on Article 14 read with to ration in Nakaras case AIR 1983 SC 130 as fallacious in view of the fact that while in the case of pension retires who were alive the Government had a continuing obligators while in the case of provident fund retires each ones right had finally crystallised on the date of retirement and there was no continuing obligation thereafter to be treated at prior with pension retirees. Counsel for the respondents therefore contended that in view of this sub sequent constitution Bench Judgment explaining Nakaras case the application of Article 14 in such situation the claim of the petitioner to be entitled as of right to switch over to pension scheme is thoroughly unsustainable. Reliance was also placed on the deci sion of this court in India Ex-service League y. Union of India, (1991) IGT (SC) 243 : AIR 1991 SC 1182 , which was a case of retired ex- serviceman who were claiming relief of "one rank on pension" placing reliance on the in Nakaras case AIR 1983 SC 130 . This court negatived their claim also. This court negatived their claim also. " 9 With reference to above judgment the question for consideration is whether in the notification, dated 26th April, 1982, is there any reference to a precribed date from which mason teachers became entitled for pension / 10 It is clear from the reading of Government notification that in the said notification there is no mention of such prescribed date according to which the mason teacher who retired before such alleged date the pensionary benefits should not be imparted. All the person who were working on the post of mason teacher on contract on the date of notification are entitled to pension from the date of publication of notification. As a consequence of the services rendered on contract such working person have been held to be entitled to pension The argument of learned standing counsel that because the peti tioner was appointed on contract basis, so he is not entitled to benefit of Government notification is not tenable, this argument is against the tenor of Government notification itself. It is made clear m the Government notifica tion such serving mason teacher who are employed on contractual basis, their service be made pensionable and the said ^government notification has been issued for the benefit of mason teachers working on contract basis. 11. Now the sole question that survives for determination whether the petitioner can be refused benefit of Government notification on the basis that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation in 1980. It is admitted position between the parties that no rule have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate the service of mason teacher, whether superan nuation age is fixed at 58, 60 or 62 depends on rule and in the absence of any rule there is no justification to accept this contention that since petitioner has completed 58 years age of superannuation, he is not entitled to the benefit of Government Order. That Government notification is silent on the point of age superannuation. 12. For the first time on 30 September, 1982 the U. P. Government held that those who had completed 58 years prior to April 1991 will not be entitled to pensionary benefits. That Government notification is silent on the point of age superannuation. 12. For the first time on 30 September, 1982 the U. P. Government held that those who had completed 58 years prior to April 1991 will not be entitled to pensionary benefits. In this connection, only it is relevant to mention that the Government notification neither 1st April, 1981 was treated as cut off date nor 58 years age has been held to be the dividing line. Undisputably the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits as defined in the Government notification. On this footing I allow the writ petition with costs and quash the order, dated 30th September, 1982 and by writ of mandamus ordain the respondents that on receipt of certified copy of this judgment do pay to Mahadev, wife of Badluram the pension amount till Badluram was alive as per provision of Government notification, dated 26th April, 1982, within a month of receipt of copy of judgment and after the death of Badluram if the substituted petitioner is entitled to family pension benefit, she be paid the family pension. Petition allowed. .