JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Kshirod Prasad Das, a retired Junior Class-I Officer of the Orissa State Housing Board (for short, 'the Board') in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to release pension payable to him from October, 1996 and onwards. 2. Briefly stated, petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition is that he while working as Scheme Officer in Junior Class-I in the Board, retired from service on 30.11.1993 on attaining age of superannuation. Provisional pension @ Rs. 1,337/- per month was a sanctioned in his favour vide Officer order under Annexure-3 with effect from 1.12.1993. Accordingly, the petitioner drew commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 57.488/- and so, his pension was reduced to Rs. 915/-. He continued to draw his pension at the aforesaid rate along with temporary increase as admissible from time to time. On 1.11.1996 he authorised one Khageswar Parida to receive pension in the shape of account payee cheque, but he was denied of the pension. On enquiry from the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board he ascertained that the Board has reviewed the payment of pension in its 200th meeting held on 30.10.1996 vide Annexure-7. The further case of the petitioner is that though a set of Pension Rules applicable to the retired employees of the Board was drafted and sent to Government way-back in 1989, but the same has not yet been approved, so until a separate pension rules are adopted by the Board, the rules applicable to the employees of the State Government squarely apply to the Board's employees as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Orissa Housing Board Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'). In absence of approved rules and without there being any justifiable cause the authorities of the Board illegally and arbitrarily stopped payment of pension to the petitioner which was being paid to him from the date of his retirement. He being a retired employee and having no other source of income is fully dependent upon his pension to maintain himself and his family. For the inaction of the State Government in not approving the Pension Rules for long years he should not suffer and the pension as was being paid to him should not be withheld. 3. He being a retired employee and having no other source of income is fully dependent upon his pension to maintain himself and his family. For the inaction of the State Government in not approving the Pension Rules for long years he should not suffer and the pension as was being paid to him should not be withheld. 3. The Board through its Assistant Law Officer by filing the counter affidavit has contended, inter alia, that Board in its 153rd meeting held on 21.7.1989 approved introduction of pension scheme for its regular employees. The same was forwarded to the State Government in Housing and Urban Development Department vide letter dated 13.9.1989 for approval. Subsequently reminders were issued in 1996 and 1997 under Annexures-A and B. But till date no steps have been taken by the Government for approving the Rules. It is asserted that since the Rules have not yet been approved the retired employees of the Board are not entitled to pensionary benefits. Inadvertently pensionary benefits were extended to the petitioner on the basis of the draft Rules and when this mistake was detected, the Board in its 200th meeting held on 30.10.1996 decided that the employees retiring on superannuation should be paid employees' and employer's shares of provident fund including interest, besides the gratuity admissible under the Gratuity Act, 1972. Accordingly the petitioner's case was reviewed and the amount payable to the petitioner on the above heads was calculated at Rs. 2,82,271/- and after deducting the amount already paid, i.e. Rs. 2,68,205/- a sum of Rs. 14,066/- was found payable to the petitioner. Accordingly an account payee cheque for the aforesaid amount was issued to the petitioner on 8.8.1997. In the premises it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits as claimed. 4. We are shocked to find that the authorities of the Board in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner have denied pension to the petitioner which he is legally entitled to. Rule 5(3) of the Rules has been amended as is evident from the Notification in the Official Gazette dated 17.2.1990 (Annexure-4). By the aforesaid amendment retirement benefits, including pension as applicable from time to time to Government employees have been made applicable to the officers and employees of the Board. Rule 5(3) of the Rules has been amended as is evident from the Notification in the Official Gazette dated 17.2.1990 (Annexure-4). By the aforesaid amendment retirement benefits, including pension as applicable from time to time to Government employees have been made applicable to the officers and employees of the Board. Until the new Rules came into force making any departure of the benefit of pension to a retired employee of the Board, there was absolutely no impediment on the part of the authorities to continue payment of the same to the petitioner as was being paid to him. We are unable to appreciate the stand taken by opposite party No. 1 that unless the draft Pension Rules lying with the Government since 1989 are approved, pensionary benefits cannot be extended to the petitioner. Why should the petitioner suffer for negligence and callousness of the Board and the State Government as well ? Why did not the Board pursue the Government to approve the draft Rules ? Why did it sleep over the matter till 1996 when for the first time it issued reminder to the State Government to approve the Rules ? This is a glaring example as to how State machineries are functioning. 5. The above being the position, we hasten to hold that the action of the authorities of the Board paying pension to the petitioner has no sanction under law. We therefore, command the opposite parties to take steps for payment of pension to the petitioner including all arrears. The arrears which the petitioner is entitled from October, 1996 till date be calculated and paid within two months hence. 6. The writ application is allowed with consolidated cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) P.C. Naik, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed