S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :-" (A)A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities concerned and/or their Agents or servants and/or to cancel and/or rescind and/or annual and/or set aside the order dated 8. 10. 98 being No. 3692/pn/n/ii/2p-10/97 issued by the respondent No. 1 being annexure 'h' to the writ petition. (b)A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities and/or their agents and/or men and/or servants to give effect to and/or further effect of the memo being No. 236/cp-DPPG/zil/pur/004/99 issued by the respondent No. 2 dated 24. 05. 99 allowing the pensionary benefits in favour of the respondent No. 9. (c)A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities and/or their agents and/or their men and/or servants to cancel and/or rescind and/or set aside the application for voluntary retirement being annexure 'c' to this petition and subsequent recommendation by the Zilla Parishad in its resolution dated 6. 11. 95 being annexure 'd' to this writ petition. " ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent No. 9 was an employee of Purulia Zilla Parishad. While serving as an employee, he contested the election of Councillor of Purulia Municipality and was elected whereafter, he was also elected as Chairman. ( 3 ) ON or about 8/17. 12. 1995 the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal by a letter addressed to the Sabhadhipati, Purulia Zilla Parishad, inter alia, drew the latter's attention to Rule 159 of the West Bengal Zilla Parishad (Election, Constitution and Administration) Rules, 1964 and stated that taking part in the election process by the respondent No. 9 was illegal. In the aforementioned situation it was directed:-"i am directed to state that in view of the above provision of law the State Government is of the view that the Zilla Parishad acted ultra vires in allowing Sri Biswas, a regular employee of the Zilla Parishad to contest Municipal Election. It is also held that Sri Krishnapada Biswas should not be allowed to continue to hold the post of Zilla Parishad unless he resigns from the office of the member, Purulia Municipality and consequently, from the office of the Chairman. It is also held that Sri Krishnapada Biswas should not be allowed to continue to hold the post of Zilla Parishad unless he resigns from the office of the member, Purulia Municipality and consequently, from the office of the Chairman. I am further directed to request you to kindly ask Sri Krishnapada Biswas, Overseer, to either retain his elected post in the Municipality and resign from the regular post of Zilla Parishad, or retain his Regular post at Zilla Parishad and resign from the elected post in the Municipality. He may be allowed reasonable time to finally shape his decision in the matter. In view of importance of the issue, I am also directed to request you to kindly inform this Deptt. of further development in the matter. " ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 9 thereafter tendered his resignation on 25. 4. 95 which was later on accepted by the Secretary of the Purulia Zilla Parishad by a letter dated 26. 4. 95. It, however, appears that the said respondent thereafter filed an application for voluntary retirement on the same day and prayed for grant of terminal benefits which was allowed by the members of the Zilla Parishad by adopting a resolution in this regard. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the resolution of the Zilla Parishad accepting his voluntary resignation is illegal as he had already resigned from his services and consequently he was not entitled to any terminal benefits. In any event it has been contended that the relaxation granted as regard the age of his voluntary retirement in terms of the order dated 8. 10. 98 as contained in annexure 'h' to the writ petition is illegal. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the respondents' contention is that the Secretary of the Zilla Parishad has no jurisdiction to accept his resignation and the application for voluntary retirement filed by the respondent No. 9 had to be accepted by a Committee in terms of Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme. It was contended that in terms of a circular dated 21. 7. 1993 the calculation of length of qualifying service for retirement benefit is as under:"reference is invited to Board's letter of even number dated 25. 10. It was contended that in terms of a circular dated 21. 7. 1993 the calculation of length of qualifying service for retirement benefit is as under:"reference is invited to Board's letter of even number dated 25. 10. 90 in terms of which the benefit of rounding off a qualifying service of 9 years 9 months and above at the time of retirement, into 10 years was allowed for pension. Although it was stipulated in para 2 therein that the said benefit was also available for determination of retirement gratuity/death gratuity, however, for this purpose a specific reference to para 7. 2 of Board's letter No. PC-IV/87/imp/pn/1 dated 15. 4. 87 dealing with Death Gratuity got omitted inadvertently. Therefore, the last sentence of para 2 of Board's letter of 25. 10. 90 under reference should be deemed to refer also to para 7. 2 of Board's letter of 15. 4. 87 mentioned above. " ( 7 ) IT has been urged that Rule 7 (i) of the said Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme provides for qualifying services and, thus, no illegality has been committed by the Governor in exercising his jurisdiction in terms of Clause 7 (ii) and 4 (b) thereof. ( 8 ) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that such power of relaxation having been exercised without application of mind must be held to be bad in law. The learned counsel submits that the grant of relaxation having been made on the ground of hardship, the same must be held to be illegal as it was not the case of the employee himself and, thus, a fraud on power has been committed. ( 9 ) MR. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Zilla Parishad, on the other hand, submitted that the control of the employees, officers and other employees of the Zilla Parishad vests in the executive officer and as admittedly the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme is applicable in the instant case, no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order dated 8. 10. 98 as contained in annexure 'h' to the writ application. ( 10 ) MR. Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the instant application cannot be said to be in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. 10. 98 as contained in annexure 'h' to the writ application. ( 10 ) MR. Dasgupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the instant application cannot be said to be in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. It has been pointed out that neither the petitioner No. 1 is a registered body nor are they prejudiced by reason of the impugned order. It has been submitted that as the State had the power to grant relaxation, no illegality can be said to have been committed. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on The Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 892 . ( 11 ) THE Court in a Public Interest Litigation does not strictly adhere to the principles of 'locus' of a person to file the same once it is found that the litigation involves Public Interest. It may be true that in the instant case the litigation concerns an employee but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the questions of importance raised in this application involving the mode and manner in which the law is allowed to be flouded. The respondent No. 9 was an employee. He, therefore, while being in employment could not have on the Government's own showing contested for an election in violation of the terms of Rule 159 of the West Bengal Zilla Parishad (Election, Constitution and Administration) Rules, 1964 which continued to remain in force in terms of 219 (g) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. ( 12 ) A bare perusal of the said letter dated 8th/17th February, 1995 would clearly show that a strong exception had been taken by the Government in relation to the conduct of the Respondent No. 9 and, thus, he having been asked to tender his resignation could not have been permitted to file any application for voluntary retirement. It is also not clear as to how the respondent No. 9 was allowed to resign from the service as also file an application for permission to retire voluntarily. ( 13 ) IT may be true that the Secretary of the Purulia Zilla Parishad himself had no jurisdiction to accept the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 9 but it appears from the letter dated 26. 4. ( 13 ) IT may be true that the Secretary of the Purulia Zilla Parishad himself had no jurisdiction to accept the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 9 but it appears from the letter dated 26. 4. 95 as contained in annexure 'b' to the writ application that the same was done by him as per direction of the competent authority. The aforementioned letter was also received by the respondent No. 9 on 27. 4. 95. So far as the respondent No. 9's application for voluntary retirement is concerned, the same appeared to have been accepted in a meeting held on 6. 11. 95 and the matter relating to grant of pension and gratuity was directed to be sent to the State Government whereafter, the matter was referred to the State Government by the Sabhadhipati of the Zilla Parishad. ( 14 ) THE State by a letter dated 16. 3. 98 noted the aforementioned situation stating :-"i am directed to refer to your memo No. 1460/pzp dated 8. 12. 97 on the above subject and to say that it appears from the letter No. 1618/pzp dated 22. 1. 96 from Sabhadhipati, Purulia Zilla Parishad addressed to the Minister-in-Charge of this Deptt. that Shri Krishnapada Biswas, ex-Sub-Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical), Purulia Zilla Parishad applied on 27. 4. 95 expressing his desire for voluntary retirement from Zilla Parishad service, which was approved in the meeting of the Artha Sanstha, Unnayan-O-Parikalpana Sthayee Samiti of the Zilla Parishad held on 6. 11. 95. Again, it appears from your memo under reference that Shri Biswas tendered resignation to the post of Sub-Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical) of that Zilla Parishad on 25. 4. 95 in the forenoon and his resignation was accepted by the Sabhadhipati, Purulia Zilla Parishad on the same day. The acceptance of resignation was communicated to Shri Biswas under Secretary, Purulia Zilla Parishad Memo No. 128-PZP dated 26. 4. 95 and Shri Biswas received the same on 27. 4. 95. It is, therefore, not clear as to whether resignation tendered by Shri Biswas or his prayer for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Zilla Parishad and from what date? i am accordingly to request you to kindly clarify the position immediately. " ( 15 ) WHETHER clarification if any was made by the Purulia Zilla Parishad is not known. Thereafter the aforementioned order dated 8. 10. 98 was passed. i am accordingly to request you to kindly clarify the position immediately. " ( 15 ) WHETHER clarification if any was made by the Purulia Zilla Parishad is not known. Thereafter the aforementioned order dated 8. 10. 98 was passed. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent No. 9 himself had made out a case of hardship. If that be the position, the State could not have issued an order of relaxation on the aforementioned ground. The power of relaxation, thus, has been used for unauthorised purposes. An exercise of power for unauthorised purpose must be held to be malafide in law. See S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 49 . ( 16 ) IN Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1986 (1) SCC 133 , the Apex Court deprecated an executive action in a perfunctory manner and held :-"we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. The facts and the position in law thus clearly are (1) that the buildings constructed on this piece of Government land did not belong to Government, (2) that the petitioners were in possession and occupation of the buildings and (3) that by virtue of enactments binding on the Government, the petitioners could be dispossessed, if at all, only in pursuance of a decree of a Civil Court obtained in proceedings properly initiated. In these circumstances the action of the Government in taking the law into their hands and dispossessing the petitioners by the display of force, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirements of the rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be accepted from a Government functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession of property. " ( 17 ) CLAUSE 4 (b) of the Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1985 reads thus :-"in a case where the State Government is satisfied that the operation of any of the provisions of the scheme causes undue hardship, the State Government may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of the provisions of the scheme to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. " ( 18 ) THE said power, thus, can be exercised only in a case of undue harship. As indicated hereinbefore, no case had been made out for undue hardship and in fact on the respondent No. 9's own showing he wanted to resign voluntarily for the purpose of serving the public. He, as indicated hereinbefore, had committed an illegality. It was, therefore, not a case where hardship of the concerned employee could be considered for the purpose of passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter as the impugned order has been passed malafide and affects State exchequer, we are of the opinion that even in an individual case like the present one the respondent-State could not have passed the impugned order. ( 19 ) IN Dr. Meera Massey (Mrs.) v. Dr. S. B. Mehrotra and Ors, reported in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 88, the Apex Court entertained a Writ application in respect of appointment of a University Teachers although he was not a candidate stating :-"we find Dr. Mehrotra has filed the writ petition being concerned with the anomalies and illegalities in the procedure adopted by the University in making selection and regularising the various posts in contradiction to the Acts. Statutes and Ordinances. He was aware fully of all what was happening with full grip of all the materials. Facts reveal that he was genuinely concerned to rectify the wrongs without any personal animosity against anyone. His feelings were bonafide, being Professor of History in the same University. He had all the details, fully equipped with facts and the law pertaining to the University. It was not for any personal gain. It was neither politically motivated nor for publicity. The golden key for public interest litigation was delivered in the landmark decision of this Court in S. P. Gupta case. He had all the details, fully equipped with facts and the law pertaining to the University. It was not for any personal gain. It was neither politically motivated nor for publicity. The golden key for public interest litigation was delivered in the landmark decision of this Court in S. P. Gupta case. This was devised for increasing citizens participation in the judicial process for making access to the judicial delivery system to such who could not otherwise reach court for various reasons. But it is also true, since then this Court repeatedly has been cautioning its misuse laying down restrictions to scuttle out undesirable persons or body. It is in this context the above observations were made by this Court as relied by the appellants but that very authority accords approval for filing such public interest litigation. After having elaborately explained the concept of PIL, the learned Judge held that : (SCC P. 219, para 23 ). """????? any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and accelerating the pace of realisation of the Constitutional objectives. "of Course, even this is also in a given case restricted, laid down in various decisions not necessary to refer here. ( 20 ) IN Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhury and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 892 , it has been held that no litmus test has yet been evolved as to how far restrict rule of locus standi in private litigation would be relaxed, boarden and liberalised in a case of Public Interest Litigation. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 8-10-98 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. M. H. S. Ansari, J.-I agree. Application allowed.