Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, while working as Head clerk-cum-Accountant in Bhabua municipality, superannuated from the service of the Municipality on 28-2-1991. His grievance in the writ application is that he has been illegally and arbitrarily denied pension and gratuity admissible to the employees retiring from the service of the Municipality. 2. It appears that earlier also the petitioner moved this Court in C. W. J. C. No.6446 of 1992 which was disposed of by an order dated 11-5-1993, contained in Annexure 13, whereby and whereunder the Executive Officer of bhabua Municipality (who was respondent No.3 in the said writ application)was directed to look into the grievances of the petitioner and to pass a suitable order in accordance with law in regard to his grievances, whereafter on 8.6.1993 the Executive Officer of the municipality (Respondent No.3)rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension and with regard to gratuity, he passed order that it shall be paid when the fund is available. 3. The petitioner have prayed for quashing of the said order dated 8.6.1993, which is contained in Annexure 16, besides seeking direction to implement the order dated 6-12-1991, passed by the then Special Officer, contained in Annexure 6. and the subsequent resolution of the Board dated 23-8-1992 (Annexure 8) and the orders issued in pursuance thereof, contained in Annexures 9 to 12 and to pay arrears of pension and gratuity with effect from 1-3-1991 with interest. 4. In short, the case of the petitioner is that under Bihar municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1987 (in short the Rules), the provision for grant of pension to the Municipal Officers and Servants of different municipalities in Bihar was introduced in the year 1987. As per rule 3 of the Rules, the Rules came into force with effect from 1st April, 1986. Rule 4 (i) of the Rules reads as follows : "4. (i) Municipal employee on roll on the date of confirmation of this rule and who had subscribed to the contributory provident fund under provident fund rules and want to be governed by these rules shall have the option to do so and such option shall be exercised in writing in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) and submitted to their head of office within 90 days from the date of framing of this rule by the State Government. If such option in writing in prescribed form is not received within the period so fixed it will be deemed that they would retain the existing contributory provident fund. " Sub-rule (ii) of rule 4 of the Rules provides that municipal employees who retired before the date of effect of this rule and have received the part or whole amount of Provident Fund Contribution will not be eligible for the pension. 5 It is stated that a note was put up by the office of the Municipality for adoption of the Rules and the then special Officer approved the same on 5-1-1989, vide Annexure 1. Thereafter under rule 4 (i) of the Rules, option was demanded in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) from the employees within 90 days from 5-1-1989. The petitioner exercised his option on 17-2- 1989, vide annexure 2. On 17-7-1990 pension found was opened as required under rule 12 and credits of all portions of provident Fund Contribution of the employees of the Municipality were made in the said fund as per the provisions made in rule 13 of the rules. The petitioner retired from the service on 28-2-1991. Thereafter it is claimed that the Special Officer sanctioned his pension on 6-12-1991, vide annexure 6. 6. On 27-5-1992 the Government also issued order for implementation of the option and Group Insurance scheme effectively in the local bodies but despite all these when the petitioner was not paid his pension, he filed the aforementioned earlier writ application. It is claimed that the Board sanctioned pension, vide resolution No.5, contained in Annexure 8 and sanction order of pension and gratuity was also issued on 24-8-1992 with effect from 1-3-1991. It is also claimed that bills were also prepared for payment of arrears of pension and cheque was prepared and put up before the Executive Officer for signature who, however, did not sign the cheque with which also the petitioner is aggrieved. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is also claimed that bills were also prepared for payment of arrears of pension and cheque was prepared and put up before the Executive Officer for signature who, however, did not sign the cheque with which also the petitioner is aggrieved. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In substance, the case of the respondents is that the Government servant working on deputation will not come within the purview of the Rules and that rule 4 of the Rules will be deemed to have been framed on 13.11.87, when the Rules were published in the Gazette and thus, the aforesaid period of 90 days for submission of option shall commence from 13-11-1987 and thus, it ended on 11.2.1988. The respondents also contended that it is not correct to say that the Rules were adopted/implemented in the Municipality on 5-1-1989 and thus, the options were to be submitted within 90 days from that date. According to them, even as per the letter of the Special Officer, the last date for exercise of option was 12-2-1989, whereas the petitioner gave his option on 17-2-1989, i. e. , after expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days and the Municipality has/had no power to extend the time fixed under rule 4 (i) of the Rules. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had already withdrawn an amount of Rs.8,000/- from the C. P. F. which he did not deposit before his retirement and, therefore, as per sub-Rule (ii) of rule 4 of the Rules, he is not entitled for pension. According to the respondents, the impugned order dated 8-6-1993, contained in Annexure 16, is legal, just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled for pension because he did not file his application for pension in the prescribed form within the time prescribed for the same under the rules. Hence there is no merit in the case and it is fit to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Hence there is no merit in the case and it is fit to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Rules, being a beneficial legislation, should be construed in the interest of the employee and the intention of the State Government to enforce the rules even after the expiry of 90 days from its publication for the benefit of the employee are writ large from the circulars issued by it on 27th May, 1992 and 18th September, 1993, contained in annexures 18 and 19, respectively. Further, he submitted that the period of 90 days as prescribed under rule 4 of the rules will have to be computed from the date when the Municipality adopted the Rules on 5-1-1989, vide Annexure 1. 9. It appears from the order dated 5-1-89 that in Bhabua Municipality, the rules were received on 12-12-1988 and the Special Officer invoking the power under rule 6 of the Rules to interpret the said rule called for options within 90 days from that date. 10. The question which is to be considered in the present case is as to whether the exercise of option under rule 4 (i) of the Rules in the prescribed form is to be made within 90 days of the publication of the rule in the gazette or receipt of the rule in various municipalities or from the date of adoption of the rule by various municipalities. 11. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the Rules shall come into force with effect from 1st April, 1986 though the notification is dated 10th November, 1987 and was published in the bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) on 13th november, 1987. As per rule 4 (i) of the rules, the option is to be exercised in writing in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) and submitted to their head office within 90 days of the date of framing of the Rules by the State government and if such option in the prescribed form is not received within the said period, it would be deemed that they would retain the existing contributory provident fund. Sub-rule (ii)of rule 4 of the Rules provides that the municipal employees who retired before the date of effect of this rule and have received the part of whole amount of Provident Fund Contribution will not be entitled for pension. Sub-rule (ii)of rule 4 of the Rules provides that the municipal employees who retired before the date of effect of this rule and have received the part of whole amount of Provident Fund Contribution will not be entitled for pension. Under rule 6, the right of interpreting the Rules has been reserved with the local bodies. Under Rule 12 of the Rules, the Local bodies are required to open a pension fund in any Nationalised Bank located near the office to be called "the M-Unicipal Pension Fund"and is to be operated by the head of the office of the Municipality and notified Area committee or other officers as authorised by him. All portions of provident fund contribution (Local bodies shares) at the credit of the employees who opted for pension (provident fund account) are to be credited to the pension funds. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (i)of rule 4 of the rules, the option was to be exercised within 90 days of the date of framing of the Rules by the State government which would be 13th november, 1987, when the Rules were published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary ). The petitioner having exercised his option much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of framing of the rules is thus not entitled to get the benefits under the Rules, and it would be deemed that he retained the existing contributory Provident Fund. Further, he submitted that under sub-rule (ii) of rule 4 of the Rules also the petitioner is not entitled for pension under the rules as he had received the part of the amount of Provident Fund contribution before the retirement and did not refund the same until he superannuated from service. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intention of the State government who framed the Rules is not that the option should be exercised within 90 days from the date of framing of the rules, as is evident from the instructions issued on 27th May, 1992 and 18th September, 1993 to all the Executive Officers, Special Officer, administrators of various Municipalities, deputy Administrators, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Municipalities and the Notified Area Committees for implementation of the Pension Rules and Group Insurance Scheme. 14. 14. The said rule has been framed in exercise of the power under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec.38 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (in short the Act ). Under the said provision the Commissioners of the Municipality with 2/3rd majority present in the meeting have been empowered to make rule for grant of pension and gratuities out of the Municipal fund subject to approval of the State government. It appears that when the said rules were published in the Bihar gazette the Municipality was under suppression and the Special Officer was appointed for exercise of all the powers and duties which may under the provisions of the Act be exercised and performed by the Commissioner whether at a meeting or otherwise during the period of suppression. 15. It is not the case of the respondents that the said Rules were framed on a resolution of the Commissioners of the Municipality or decision of the special Officer. The State Government framed the said general rules applying to all permanent employees of all the municipalities and Notified Area Committees in exercise of its power of approval of the decision of the Municipal commissioner and/or Special Officer discharging function of such Commissioners. 16. Rule 4 (i) of the Rules provides that the municipal employees on roll on the date of confirmation of this rule who want to be governed by it shall have the option to do so and the option shall be exercised in writing in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) and submitted to their Head of Office within 90 days from the date of framing of this rule by the State Government. Thus, in my opinion, the words "municipal employee on roll on the date of confirmation of this rule" would mean that when the said rule is adopted by the municipal Commissioners and/or the special Officer appointed on their behalf to perform all the powers and duties of such Commissioners, any other interpretation or the aforemen-tion and interpretation put forward by the respondents may frustrate the object of the rule inasmuch as the literal construction will create an anomalous situation and lead to absurdity and injustice and defeat the very object of the rule. If it is interpreted that the option under rule 4 (i) by a municipal employee is to be exercised within 90 days from the date of framing of the rule by the State Government, then the use of the words "on the date of confirmation of this rule" would become redundant. Further, under Sec.38 of the Act, the power to frame such a rule is vested in the Commissioner at a meeting or in case of supersession in the Special Officer appointed by the state Government to discharge all the powers and duties of the Municipal commissioners. The State Government has only been vested with the power of approval of such a rule and not to make rule. 17. According to the Blacks Law dictionary, approval means, the act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consent to some act or thing done by another whereas the word make means to form, fashion or produce. Thus, any other interpretation may make the rule itself vulnerable to a challenge on the ground of being ultra vires section 38 of the Act. 18. It is well settled that in case of conflicting construction, the Court shall adopt which maintains rather than disturbs the equilibrium in the field of execution. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Mahijibhai V/s. Manibhai, AIR 1965 S. C.1477. It is also well settled that the primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed and that having ascertained the intention, the court must then strive to such interpretation of the statute as to promote and advance the objection and purpose of the enactment. The Apex court in the case of M/s. Girdhari Lal and Sons V/s. Balbir Nath, AIR 1986 S. C.1499 in this context held that for the said purpose, where necessary the court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning and that there need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. It was also held that to avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing, the written word if necessary. 19. In my opinion, the words "within 90 days from the date of framing of the rule by the State Government in rule 4 (i)" have to be given not a restricted but a wider meaning so as to include the maximum municipal employee for availing the benefit arising therefrom. 20. It is well known that a beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so as to advance the object of the Act, and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in the same. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Sahai Bangia V/s. R. C. Bhasin, (1982) 2 SCC 210 . 21. My interpretation to rule 4 (i)of the Rules also stands substantiated that under rule 6 of the Rules the right of the Local Bodies, i. e. Municipality and Notified Area Committee constituted under the Act for interpreting the rules has been reserved with them and under rule 44 of the Rules, the rate or slab of pension when revised in the case of a Government servant has been made admissible to the municipal employees only from or after the date of adoption of the rule. 22. Further, the intention of the state Government is writ large that it is emphasising to enforce provision of the rules even in the year 1992-93 when they issued instructions, contained in annexures 18 and 19, directing the municipal authorities and Notified area Committee for immediate strict compliance of the Rules. 23. Accordingly, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the option, in the instant case, is to be exercised within 90 days of the decision taken by the Special Officer on 5-1-1989, vide annexure 1. As it is not disputed that the petitioner exercised his option on 17-2-1989, i. e. much within 90 days from 5-1-1989, in my opinion, he will be entitled for the benefit under the rules. 24. As it is not disputed that the petitioner exercised his option on 17-2-1989, i. e. much within 90 days from 5-1-1989, in my opinion, he will be entitled for the benefit under the rules. 24. I do not find any substance in the other objection of the respondents also that sub-rule (ii) of rule 4 of the rules will come in the way of the petitioner for availing the pensionary benefit under the Rules as he already drawn an amount of Rs.8,000/- from the C. P. F. which he did not deposit before his retirement. Sub-rule (ii) of rule 4 of the Rules applies to the municipal employee who retired before the date of effect of the rule and received the part or whole amount of provident Fund Contribution and not to those municipal employees, who retired after the rule is made effective and received the part or whole amount of Provident Fund Contribution. 25. As I have already held that the rules, in the instant case, came into effect of 5-1-1989 by its adoption by the special Officer of the Municipality, vide Annexure 1, and the petitioner superannuated from service of the municipality on 28.2.1991, i. e. after it came into effect, in my opinion, subrule (ii) of rule 4 will not make him ineligible from getting the benefit of pension under the Rules. The municipal authorities can, of course, make necessary deductions/adjustment of any amount received by the petitioner from the Provident Fund Contribution for computing pension in accordance with law, but he cannot be "denied of the pensionary benefit available to a municipal employee under the Rules. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order, contained in annexure 16, is quashed and respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to release the entire pensionary dues of the petitioner under the rules and other retrial benefits within one month of the receipt of a copy of this judgment/order. 27. As the amount has wrongly been kept withheld by the Municipality since the retirement of the petitioner, i. e. , now for about five years, in my opinion, he is entitled for an interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the admitted dues from the due date till the date of actual payment. 27. As the amount has wrongly been kept withheld by the Municipality since the retirement of the petitioner, i. e. , now for about five years, in my opinion, he is entitled for an interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the admitted dues from the due date till the date of actual payment. Accordingly, I direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to calculate the said interest over the admitted dues payable to the petitioner and pay the same within the aforesaid time. In the result, the writ application is allowed, but without costs. Petition Allowed.