Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. The State Government vide resolutions Nos.1853 and 1854 dated 19-4-90 of the Finance department has revised/rationalised the pension scheme with effect from 1-1-86-Both for the employees retiring prior to and after that date-but declined to give any monetary benefit of the revision/raionalisation for the period between 1-1-86 and 18-2-89. In other words, the monetary benefits have been made effective from 1-3-89. The petitioner, which is a registered society spousing the cause of pensioners, has challenged the decision of the Govt. denying the consequential monetary benefits of the revision with effect from 1-1-86 and has sought a mandamus to the respondents to implement the scheme with effect from that date. The impugned decision is contained in paragraph 1 (i) and paragraph 2.1 and paragraph 2.1 respectively of resolution Nos.8153 and 8154, dt.19-4-90. 2. The thrust of the petitioners case is that the State Government has always fixed the pension scheme on the pattern laid down by the Government of India and the instant revision/rationalisation was also effected in the light of two office memoranda dated 14-4-87 and 16-4-87 received from the government of India in the light of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay commission. It is said that the proposals were examined by the Finance department and it was decided to give the same benefits to the employees and pensioners of the State Government. The memorandum prepared by the finance Department was duly approved by the Cabinet on 19-4-88. As per the said decision the benefit of revision and rationalisation was to be made effective from 1-1-86 as in the case of the employees of the Central Government. But unfortunately, no follow-up action was taken by the Finance Department. Later, memorandum was placed before the Cabinet on 14-9-88 suggesting that the previous decision dated 19-4-88 be kept in abeyance until receipt of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay revision Committee constituted by the state Government. In this manner, the finance Department succeeded in stalling the implementation of the Government decision. Finally, the impugned decisions were taken and resolutions were issued on 19-4-90. Although the same cut-off date as suggested by the government of india, namely, 1-1-86 was maintained, another cut-off date was fixed as 1-3-89 for giving the monetary benefit. In this manner, the finance Department succeeded in stalling the implementation of the Government decision. Finally, the impugned decisions were taken and resolutions were issued on 19-4-90. Although the same cut-off date as suggested by the government of india, namely, 1-1-86 was maintained, another cut-off date was fixed as 1-3-89 for giving the monetary benefit. This was done on a spacious plea that the monetary benefit of the revised pay scale in the light of the recommendation of the Fifth Pay revision Committee was given from 1-3-89. In other words, according to the state Government, the same cut-off date was fixed for both the serving and retired/retiring employees in the matter of giving the monetary benefits of revised pay and pension. 3. It may be stated here that according to the counter-affidavit, two more considerations had weighed with the State Government : (a) the resource constraints, and (b) agreement entered into between the State Government on the one hand and the teachers/ employees/officers Joint Coordination committee on the other on 19-10-89 to the effect that pay of the pay of the employees retiring between 1-1-86 and 22-8-89 be notionally fixed on 1-1-86 in the revised pay scale and their pension be also accordingly fixed/refixed notionally on the basis of the pay so fixed as on 1-1-86 but payments be made with effect from 1-3-89 without any arrears. While denying the claim of the pensioners in the writ petition, the respondents have also pleaded that the State Government is not bound to follow the Central Pattern and it is free to take its own independent decision. The decision is applicable uniformly to all retired/retiring employees and the same, therefore, is not discriminatory. 4. It is no doubt open to the State government to revise/rationalise its pension scheme either on the same pattern as followed by the government of india or to frame its own scheme and to also fix a cut-off date. In fact, in the present case, it could, as well, have fixed 1.3.89 or date of issue of the impugned resolution, i. e.19-4-90 as the cut-off date. The question for consideration nevertheless is whether having decided to revise/rationalise the pension scheme with effect from 1-1-86 on the central pattern, the State Government had any justification to deny the consequential monetary benefits thereof and make the same effective only from 1-3-89. 5. The question for consideration nevertheless is whether having decided to revise/rationalise the pension scheme with effect from 1-1-86 on the central pattern, the State Government had any justification to deny the consequential monetary benefits thereof and make the same effective only from 1-3-89. 5. The submission that the same cut-off date has been fixed for the serving employees and in their case also arrear of pay has not been allowed for the period between 1-1-86 and 28-2-89 is not very convincing. Firstly, the serving employees had already been granted interim relief as well as cumulative dearness allowance on the total of pay and dearness allowances, as a result of which they had already been allowed a substantial measure of the benefits of actual pay revision prior to 1-3-89. Nothing of the kind was done to pensioners. Secondly, pay and pension cannot be treated at par. While serving employees are entitled to annual increments, there is no such provision for the pensioners. In the present case the serving employees were allowed three annual increments on the pay fixed on 1-1-86 (with effect from 1-1-87, 1-1-88 and 1-1-89) and then their pay was fixed in the revised scale on 1-3-89 and consequential monetary benefits were given to them thereafter. That benefit could not be and was not given to pensioners because they do not get increments. In other words, although arrears of pay revision were not given to the serving employees, they were compensated to a substantial extent by giving the benefits of the annual increments in the matter of their pay fixation, besides granting them interim relief, etc. Therefore, the plea that the same treatment was given to the employees in active service and the retired employees does not appear to be tenable. 6. As regards the resource constraints, less said the better. In the reply affidavit the petitioner has tried to highlight the financial mess which the State government has created for itself and submitted that for the misdeeds of the government its retired employees should not be made to suffer. To deny them the arrears for the period in question would not be just and proper, particularly in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the State Government. To deny them the arrears for the period in question would not be just and proper, particularly in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the State Government. In fact, as stated above, the State Government had taken a favourable decision on 19-4-88 after due examination of the matter in the light of the memmoranda of the Government of India dated 14-4-87 and 16-4-87. Had the decision been given effect to immediately thereafter, the retired employees of the State government also would have got the monetary benefits of the revision/rationalisation with effect from 1-1-86 itself as in the case of retired employees of Government of India. 7. It is not in dispute that the State government had followed the same pattern as fixed by the Government of india in the past and, therefore, on the materials brought on record there was no justification for it to make a departure. The pensioners are persons who spent the best period of their lives in the service of the State and they deserve to be treated with kindness. As the Apex court has observed in D. S. Nakara V/s. Union of India, AIR 1983 Supreme court 130, pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past but it has also a broader significance. "it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic activity in the fall of life with the physical and mental prowes is ebbing corresponding to againg 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. In the fall of life, the State ought to ensure to the citizens a reasonably descent standard of life, medical aid, freedom from want, freedom from fear and the enjoyable leisure, relieving the boredom and the humiliation of dependence in old age. This is what Article 41 (of the Constitution of India) aims when it enjoins the State to secure public assistance in old age, sickness and disablement". I cannot express myself more forcefully and eloquently as their Lorships have done. 8 For the reasons stated above, paragraph 1 (i) of resolution No.1853 dated 19-4-90 and paragraph 2.1 of resolution No.1854 dated 19-4-90 containing the impugned decision of the state Govenment are quashed. I cannot express myself more forcefully and eloquently as their Lorships have done. 8 For the reasons stated above, paragraph 1 (i) of resolution No.1853 dated 19-4-90 and paragraph 2.1 of resolution No.1854 dated 19-4-90 containing the impugned decision of the state Govenment are quashed. The state Government is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. There will be no order as to cost. Petition Allowed.