William R. Shimray Now Dead v. State of Manipur — 1996 DIGILAW 180 (GAU)

J. N. Sarma, J.— This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2.4.96 issued by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.28 of 1993 by which the writ application was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. One Mr. William R. Shimray was appointed as Field Assistant on regular basis by an order dated 1.2.1954 in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry and his service was confirmed with effect from 31.10.58. Thereafter, he was holding the post of Assistant Extension Officer. On 23rd March, 1977, the employee applied for retirement on voluntary basis vide Annexun D/2 to the writ appeal and that is quoted below : "I have the honour to tender my retirement on the following grounds : That, I have served more than 23 (twenty three) years in the Department as VFA without any break and in the rolled years I have been serving with loyalty to my bounden duty in the interest of Govt in general and the people in particular as well. But regretted to jot that circumstances compells me to retire from my present post/job as I am unable to render my service any longer. That, being compelled by circumstances to retire from my present post, I request you kindly to consider my case by granting pension if possible under the rules, if not kindly accept resignation being tendered wef 1st May, 1977." 4. On the basis of this application on 30th April, 1977 the then Director of the Department wrote Annexure D/3, to the Joint Secretary (Service), to the Government of Manipur. That is quoted below : "I have the honour to say that one employee of Class HI post in this Department is applying for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.5.77 with the request to extend the benefit of pension and gratuity entitled to him. In this connection, I am to request you kindly to confirm if any benefit of pension and gratuity may be granted to the employee as admissible under the prevailing rules. Details of his service is furnished below for perusal. 1. Name and Designation: Shri WR Shimray, Assistant Extension Officer (AH) 2. Scale of Pay: 325-710 PM 3. Date of Birth: 1.10.1934 4. Date of appointment in Appointed Field Assistant in the scale of Rs.240/- Govt Service: 390 PW wef 1.2.1954. 5. Details of his service is furnished below for perusal. 1. Name and Designation: Shri WR Shimray, Assistant Extension Officer (AH) 2. Scale of Pay: 325-710 PM 3. Date of Birth: 1.10.1934 4. Date of appointment in Appointed Field Assistant in the scale of Rs.240/- Govt Service: 390 PW wef 1.2.1954. 5. Substantive posts : He was confirmed in the post of Field Assistant " w.e.f. 31.10.58. The matter may kindly be treated as immediate." 5. The authority without considering other aspects, the letter Annexure D/2 quoted above was considered to be the letter of resignation and it was accepted by the authority with effect from 1.5.77 vide Annexure D/4. That is quoted below: "Government of Manipur Director of Veterinary and AH Services: Manipur ORDER, Imphal, the 4th May, 1977 No.VY/7/BE/69 : Resignation tendered by Shri WR Shimray, Assistant Extension Officer (Animal Husbandry) now attached to the TD Block, Chingai, is hereby accepted wef 1.5.77." 6. Thereafter a representation was filed on 17th May, 1977 which is Annexure D/5 to the writ appeal. In the meantime, the. State of Manipur introduced a scheme of voluntary retirement for the employees and that scheme provides far voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service on proportionate pension and gratuity with a weightage of upto 5 years towards qualifying service. That scheme was introduced on 15th March, 1978 and it was published in the Gazette of Manipur on March 22,1978. After the introduction of this scheme of voluntary retirement, the petitioner approached the authority again and again for consideration of his case under that particular scheme but the Govt of Manipur turned a deaf ear to it and only on 21st January, 1992, the Govt of Manipur granted him cash equivalent to leave salary tathe employee in lieu of unutilised earned leave due for 20 days on the date of ceasation of service on 1.5.77. 7. The petitioner's ceasation of service by accepting the aforesaid letter of resignation means that there was a gap of 10 months and 14 days and if the period of leave subsequently granted is taken into account the gap will be 7 (seven) months and 14 days. 8. The writ application was filed with the prayer that a Mandamus be issued to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed. 8. The writ application was filed with the prayer that a Mandamus be issued to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed. The teamed Single Judge after hearing the parties inter alia found as follows: (i) That when the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement pension, there was no such scheme prevailing at that time and as such the application dated 23.3.77 was accepted as resignation. (ii) Although the case appears to be somewhat unfortunate in the absence of scheme of the voluntary retirement pension, this Court is helpless to extend any relief to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ application was dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal. 10. We have heard Sri RS Reishang, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri L. Shyamkishore, learned Senior Govt Advocate for the respondents. 11. The following points are urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant: (i) That an application for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted as resignation. The petitioner was never told before accepting the resignation that there is no such scheme for voluntary retirement and as such his prayer cannot be considered, without informing the petitioner and treating the letter as letter of resignation is unjust and arbitrary exercise of power. (ii) Justice and equity demand that the case of the petitioner for grant of pension should be considered by relaxing the provision. (iii) That there is a scheme for voluntary retirement of the Manipur Govt employees and there is no bar for the authority to give this benefits to other persons and granting of this relief shall not be against the statute of law. In order to mould the relief and do justice, the scheme may be suitably moulded to give relief in an appropriate and just case. 12. Before we proceed further, it may be stated herein that during the pendency of this writ application, the original petitioner died in the year 1994 and his wife was substituted and she is claiming the pension till the date of death of her husband and for family pension as provided by the Manipur Pension Rules. 13. Let us first take up the letter of resignation Annexure D/2 to the writ application which has been quoted above in the judgment. 13. Let us first take up the letter of resignation Annexure D/2 to the writ application which has been quoted above in the judgment. The subject of this letter is retirement on voluntary basis and it says that the person wanted to tender retirement on the following grounds and the last line of the letter says as follows : "If not kindly accept resignation being tendered wef 1st May, 1977." 14. What is the purport of this so called letter of resignation ? It is a letter of resignation with a condition or with some conditions. The law is that the letter of resignation must be unambiguous. A resignation can be accepted only when it is clear, explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal and not conditional. If a letter of resignation is coupled with a condition, the same cannot be accepted by the authority without first informing the employee that the condition put forth by him cannot be accepted. This will give an employee a chance to reconsider the matter. In this particular case as will be seen that so called letter of resignation was sent on 23rd March, 1977 and on 30th April, 1977 vide Annexure D/3, the Director of the Department wrote to the authority to consider his case for pension and gratuity if admissible under the prevailing rules. The authority did not reply with regard to this aspect or the condition put forth in the so called letter of resignation and by the impugned order dated 4th May, 1977 immediately accepted the resignation without applying its mind or without telling the employee that the condition put forth by him in the letter of resignation cannot be considered and/or that benefit is not available to the employee. The impugned order was received by the writ petitioner on 15th May, 1977 and immediately on 17th May, 1977 he wrote back to the employee vide Annexure D/5 to reconsider and for review of the resignation orders so that he may get the benefits of pension and gratuity under the prevailing Rules or by special consideration to his long regular service and confirmation. That Annexure D/5 is quoted below : "I have the honour to state that I have applied for voluntary retirement due to personal circumstances after rendering Government service of 23 years and 2 months and when my personal age was 43 years only. That Annexure D/5 is quoted below : "I have the honour to state that I have applied for voluntary retirement due to personal circumstances after rendering Government service of 23 years and 2 months and when my personal age was 43 years only. But on the contrary order was issued as acceptance of resignation from service with effect from 1.5.1977 vide Director of Veterinary, Manipur Order No. VY/7/BE/69 dated 4.5.77 without any benefit of pension and gratuity. I was holding the post of Assistant Extension Officer (AH) posted at Chingai TD Block of Manipur East District, Ukhrul by the time of my retirement and confirmed service in the post of Veterinary Field Assistant wef 31.10.1958. There was no adverse remarks against me and no outstanding dues to be recovered from me. In the foregoing circumstances, my case may kindly be reconsidered for review of the resignation orders so that I may get the benefit of pension and gratuity as admissible under the prevailing rules or by special consideration to my long regular service and confirmation. For which act of your kindness, I shall remain grateful to you." 15. In the State of Manipur, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been adopted and it is this rule which will govern the case for giving pension to the appellant. Rule 26 of that Rules provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. Rule 26 (1) of the aforesaid rules is quoted below : "26. Forfeiture of service on resignation : (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. 26. (4). Rule 26 of that Rules provides for forfeiture of service on resignation. Rule 26 (1) of the aforesaid rules is quoted below : "26. Forfeiture of service on resignation : (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. 26. (4). The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely: (i) That the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection hi his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation; (ii) that dining the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper, (iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resunie duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days; (iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available. 27. Effect of interruption in service : (1) An interruption in the service of an Govt servant entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases: (a) authorised leave of absence; (b) unauthorised absence in continuation of authorised leave of absence so long as the post of absence is not filled substantivery; (c) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the Govt servant dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension. (d) transfer to non qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest; (1) Joining time while on transfer from one post to another. (d) transfer to non qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest; (1) Joining time while on transfer from one post to another. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the appointing authority may, by order, commute retrospectively the periods of absence without leave as is extraordinary leave." 16. FR 17A provides for condonation in break in service for the purpose of pension and there is an instruction of the Govt of India that the appointing authority should be liberal in deciding the question of condonation of break in service for counting the past services of the official for the purpose of pension. It is father clarified in that circular that it is not intention of the Govt to deny pensionary benefits to the employees in all cases of break in service, if necessary the appointing authority may in its discretion condone the break in service on account of unauthorised absence for the purpose of pension only in an appropriate case and even the question of condonation of break in service for the purpose of pension, the Pension Rules may be considered suo motu without waiting for representation from the affected officials and orders be issued so that the retired employees are not put to financial hardship. 17. The learned Government Advocate strenuously urged that in view of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the appellant is not entitled to any pension. But the learned Govt Advocate failed to consider the obligation and duty of the authority as provided in sub-rule (4). Vide Annexure D/5 quoted above, there was a request to withdraw the resignation but that was not considered by the authority. Further, Rule 27 (2) provides that the appointing authority may, by order, commute retrospectively the periods of absence without leave as extraordinary leave. That aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the authority and for this periods it is not necessary as clarified by the instruction of the Govt of India that the officer should write to the employer and the employer has the obligation to consider it suo motu. After all the Pension Rules are made for the benefits, welfare and good of the employee and it should be construed in a liberal manner to give benefits to the employees. After all the Pension Rules are made for the benefits, welfare and good of the employee and it should be construed in a liberal manner to give benefits to the employees. These rules should not be considered as laws of Medes and the Persians. The Rule should be moulded in such a manner so that the employee may get justice in the case, in an particular situation as pointed out by the Apex Court in AIR 1983 SC 130 (DS Nakara & others vs. Union of India). There the Supreme Court in paragraphs 20,29, 30, 31, 33 and 36, it is pointed oat as follows : "20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634 : ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ) wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of its does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh, (1976) 3 SCR 360 : ( AIR 1976 SC 667 ). 29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental powers is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowances or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. 30. The discernible, purpose thus underlying pension scheme qr a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the Courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American Jurisprudence 2d 881). 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 Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also DC noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to ten months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 33.... Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 33.... It was such a socialist State which the preamble directs the centres of power Legislative, Executive and Judiciary to strive to set up. From a whole feudal exploited slave society to a vibrant, throbbing socialist welfare society is a long march but during this journey to the fulfilment of goal every State action (illegible) taken must be directed, and must be so interpreted, as to take the society one step towards the goal. 36.... The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a fillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare State because by pension the socialist goal of security of cradle to grave is assured atleast when it is mostly needed and least available, namely, in the fall of life." 18. On the background of this law quoted above, let us have a look at the facts of this case. As pointed out above, the so called letter of resignation of the writ petitioner was not unconditional and unambiguous one. The writ petitioner actually did not resign but sought voluntary retirement with the fond hope that he will get some pensionary benefits but the authority without adverting to the prayer of the writ petitioner, accepted the letter as resignation. This appears to be high handed action on the part of the authority and as such this Annexure D/4 is to be quashed which we hereby do. The next question is how to grant the prayers of the petitioner in accordance with law. 19. By a single stroke of the pen vide Annexure D/4 quoted above, the authority wiped out all the service benefits of the writ petitioner who rendered long and dedicated service of 23 years and 2 (two) months. That fond hope that he will get something at the end of his long service career was belied and dashed to ground by the authority, that also without proper application of mind and without, considering the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the pensionary benefits. That fond hope that he will get something at the end of his long service career was belied and dashed to ground by the authority, that also without proper application of mind and without, considering the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the pensionary benefits. An employee may act in a fool hardy manner and if it is not prejudicial to the employer, it is the duty of the employer to point out that this action of the employeee is not in consonance with the Rules so that he may reconsider the same, otherwise the very purpose of the employer to look and consider the benefits and welfare of the employee shall be set at naught and the harmonious relation of the employer and the employee shall also be shattered and frustrated. That is not the object of a welfare State like India. It is not the purpose of the employer to trip an employee to cause difficulty to him but the employer has also some duty and obligation to tell the employee that certain benefits, which he is seeking, are not available to him and he must wait sometime to get those benefits. No doubt ignorance of law and rules is not an excuse but at the same time that should not be interpreted in a straight jacket manner to deprive the employee of his legitimate right by resorting to such harsh and drastic measures, and if that is allowed that will not be justice but sheer injustice and if such a thing comes to the notice of the writ Court, the writ Court should make endeavour to wipe out such kind of injustice. After all the writ Court is a Court of equity and if the Court of equity finds that equity demands granting relief in question, the writ Court can certainly step in and grant relief. That is what we are doing in the instant case. 20. It is to be borne in mind that the law givers always intend to avoid injustice and hardship. The executive also must faithfully follow this principle in modulating its actions. In some cases hardship may result in implementing a decision, but that is because it is unavoidable and for the good of the society. 20. It is to be borne in mind that the law givers always intend to avoid injustice and hardship. The executive also must faithfully follow this principle in modulating its actions. In some cases hardship may result in implementing a decision, but that is because it is unavoidable and for the good of the society. But in a case where it is found that the hardship can be avoided by adopting a different course, which is also legal, proper and just, the authority is bound to accept that course, as all the institution exist, must make attempt to do good to all. Bentham's approach to law is to deliver maximum goods/happiness with minimum amount of friction. Here is the case of entitlement of a law paid employee to get pension and by adopting a different course within the bounds of law that benefit can be given, we all should make such an effort. That will be just, proper, fair and equitable. We cannot and should not make an attempt to wipe out hardships by breaking down the rules or laws. But if a construction can be given which is not inconsistent, unreasonable or unjust, it is better to adopt that path, that will be the real road to attain the goal of justice. 21. Except filing an affidavit-in-opposition no record was produced and to show that his prayer was considered except on 6.12.91. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has not been stated that the prayers of the petitioner for entitlement of pension was considered by the authority and that it was rejected and communicated to the petitioner before accepting letter of resignation. The authority owes a duty and is under obligation to consider the bonafide prayers of a person. That has not been done and by adopting a mechanical approach the so called letter of resignation was accepted. The authority, it appears, adopted an attitude/approach to snap the relation of employer and employee by accepting the socalled letter of resignation being oblivious to perform its other duties as enjoined by law as indicated above. This unreasonable and unjust approach of the authority to the matter to say the least .is not a proper exercise of power and it amounts to failure to perform duty. This unreasonable and unjust approach of the authority to the matter to say the least .is not a proper exercise of power and it amounts to failure to perform duty. It is a fight of a person to have a morsel of food for his bare living and the adamant attitude of the authority not to bend down taking shelter to the rigour of rules to give it to the person. In such a situation the Court should adopt a liberal approach to come to the rescue of a person who was the victim of circumstances, no doubt partially being created by his own injudicious action. But if a person goes deep in the mire others must make all reasonable attempts to rescue him, that is the norm of civilised society, a society wedded to rule of law, otherwise it will be violative of the high ideals of which we boast of. At the sametime, we are concious of the feet that the powers conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the authority acts in accordance with law. We are not issuing any direction to the authority to ignore the law. 22. Next question is that after quashing Annexure D/4, how the question of pension of the writ petitioner can be regularised within the frame work of the memorandum dated 15th March, 1978, Annexure A/5 to the writ application. 23. The authority can do it by exercising power to convert the period falling short as extraordinary leave of the petitioner under Leave Rules that is for the period from the date of acceptance of letter of resignation to the date on which scheme came into effect. Already the authority has granted 3 (three) months leave to the writ petitioner with pay as due to him. So, the short fell in this case will be for another 7 (seven) months and odd. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us Memorandum dated 18th June, 1985 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Govt of India regarding grant of family pension to the families of Govt employees who retired on or before 1.1.64 or otherwise not covered by the family pension scheme of 1964. Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of that Memorandum are quoted below: "2. Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of that Memorandum are quoted below: "2. Initially, the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, was a contributory one and employees eligible for the benefits of the scheme were required to contribute two months' emoluments out of the DCRG. However, with effect from 22.9.1977, this precondition was done away with. 3. A section of widows of eartswhile Government servants who were not covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 had filed writ petitions (Nos. 5870/93/81, 1381/82, 8446-51/83,1001/84 and 12707/84 with Civil Appeal No.2225 of 1985) in the Supreme Court of India claiming that the benefits of the Scheme may also be extended to them. 4. During the hearing of these petitions, the Govt of India made a statement on 15.4.1985 before the Court, on their own, indicating as to what extent they would be prepared to accept the claim of the widows. Keeping in view the statement filed by the Govt and clarifications subsequently given, the Supreme Court of India has delivered its judgment on 30th April, 1985, extending with effect from 22.9.1977, the benefits of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 to the families of those Govt servants who were/are borne on pensionable establishment and are presently not covered by that Scheme, namely, the families of those Govt employees who retired/died 31.12.1963, and of those who were alive on 31.12.1963 but who opted out of the 1964 Scheme." 24. This also will show that the approach to be adopted by the Court in such a matter it should be liberal in nature and benefits should be given to such a person. It is made clear that we are not rewriting the scheme introduced by the State of Manipur on voluntary retirement but only we are giving some benefits to the writ petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it further made clear that this will be available to this writ petitioner only. 25. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal anp! 25. Accordingly, we allow this writ appeal anp! direct as follows : (i) That Annexure D/4, order dated 4th May, 1977 accepting the resignation stated to be tendered by Sri William R. Shimray, Assistant Extention Officer (AH) shall stand quashed as we find that the letter dated 23rd March, 1977 by which the writ petitioner asked for voluntary retirement stating therein that' it may be treated as letter of resignation was not a letter of resignation as required in a letter of resignation. Further, the authority also did not consider the request of withrawal vide letter of resignation as it was oblige to do and we direct the authority to exercise the power to withdraw this letter of resignation as indicated above in the judgment, and for that period of shortfall to be hold with notionally in service. (ii) The authority shall grant extraordinary leave to the writ petitioner from 1.5.77 till 15.3.78, the date on which the Office Memorandum, Annexure A/5 to the writ application came into force to enable him to get the pension benefits of the scheme of voluntary retirement, holding that prayer for voluntary retirement come into effect on and from the date of enforcement of the scheme. (iii) The authority shall compute the amount of pension available to the writ peitioner/employee under the scheme of voluntary retirement, Annexure A/5 to the writ application within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order and pay the same to the present appellant till the date of death of the employee with all other retiral benefits as may be available under that scheme. (iv) After the death of the employee, the family pension as may be available to the widow may be paid to her and we found from the affidavit-in-oposition that in 1996 the widow was aged about 65 years. So, already she is having a borrowed life according to Indian standard and we hope and trust that the family pesion shall be paid to her according to rules. (v) In the meantime, the widow may be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) only by the authority within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order and that amount shall be adjusted against the dues which may be finally fixed and determined by the authority. (v) In the meantime, the widow may be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) only by the authority within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order and that amount shall be adjusted against the dues which may be finally fixed and determined by the authority. (vi) The Accountant General, shall pay the pension as determined. 26. This disposes of the writ appeal. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.