These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the petitioner seeking some reliefs with regard to his pensionary benefits. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was earlier working as an employee of the Govt of Tripura, Education Directorate. He was sent on deputation to the Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Agartala (for short, the State Board) as the Secretary of the said State Board by memorandum dated 29.8.1977 of the Govt of Tripura in the Department of Education. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed with effect from 12.8.80 (Forenoon) on appointment to the post of Secretary of the State Board by memorandum dated 16.8.1980 of the State Board. The petitioner was due to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.3.90. But the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89 took a decision for extending the services of the petitioner for a period of one year after he attained the age of 58 years in the public interest. The Chairman of the State Board accordingly issued an office memorandum dated 25.4.1990 extending the services of the petitioner initially for a period of three months in the public interest and thereafter by office memorandum dated 13.6.90 extended the services of the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 1.5.90. On ompletion of the said period of one year, the Vice Chairman of the State Board issued another office order dated 30.4.91 asking the petitioner to continue in service upto the end of June, 1991. Pursuant to the said orders of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the State Board, the petitioner continued in service upto 30.6.91 and was relieved of his duties and responsibilities in the forenoon of 1.7.1991. Soon after his retirement, a the petitioner submitted an application before the Chairman of the State Board for commutation of V3 rd of his pension of Rs. 2,150 PM. Pending such commutation, the petitioner continued to receive upto July, 1992, pension at the rate of Rs. 2,150/- PM exclusive of Dearness Relief. Soon after his retirement, a the petitioner submitted an application before the Chairman of the State Board for commutation of V3 rd of his pension of Rs. 2,150 PM. Pending such commutation, the petitioner continued to receive upto July, 1992, pension at the rate of Rs. 2,150/- PM exclusive of Dearness Relief. But by memorandum dated 5.8.92 issued by the Chairman of the State Board, the petitioner was informed that as his date of birth was 1.4.32, his date of retirement on superannuation should have been 31.3.90, and that as he was actually retired on 30.4.90 instead of 31.3.90 the said period of his service with effect from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 was not regularised by the State Board. By the said memorandum dated 5.8.92, the petitioner was further informed that the extension of his service with effect from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 was not approved by the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi, (for short, the Central Board). By the said memorandum, the petitioner was informed that it had been accordingly decided to pay him his monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- only plus admissible Dearness Relief that would have been fixed if he would have retired on 31.3.90 (AN) from the month of August, 1992 until regularisation of his period of service from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 and his extension of service from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 by the appropriate authority. Aggrieved by the said memorandum dated 5.8.92, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.8.92 before the Chairman of the State Board against the reduction of his monthly pension from Rs. 2,150 to Rs. 2,100 with effect from 1.8.92 and requested him to review his decision. The said representation dated 19.8.92 of the petitioner was not accepted by the Chairman of the State Board for reasons indicated in the memorandum dated 25.8.92 of the Chairman of the State Board, e On receipt of the said memorandum dated 25.8.92, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.8.92 before the Chairman of the State Board. The said representation dated 19.8.92 of the petitioner was not accepted by the Chairman of the State Board for reasons indicated in the memorandum dated 25.8.92 of the Chairman of the State Board, e On receipt of the said memorandum dated 25.8.92, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.8.92 before the Chairman of the State Board. Notwithstanding the said representation dated 28.8.92, the Officer In-charge of the State Board informed the Accountant General, Tripura, Agartala, by his letter dated 24.5.93 that the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 has not been regularised and that the extension of service granted to the petitioner for the period from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 was not approved by the Central Board and therefore the monthly pension of the petitioner has been refixed at Rs. 2,100 plus Dearness Relief with effect from 1.8.92 taking his basic pay at Rs. 4,200 that he would draw as on 31.3.90. In his said letter dated 24.5.93, the Officer In-charge of the State Board also informed the Accountant General, Tripura, that in the meantime the petitioner has prayed for commutation of 1/3rd of his pension amount and that the matter has been referred to the Central Board for their approval. After receiving a copy of the said letter dated 24.5.93, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 9.6.93 to the Officer In-charge of the State Board raising his objections to the said letter dated 24.5.93 of the Officer In-charge of the State Board to the Accountant General, Tripura, and requesting him to settle his long pending case relating to monthly pension and commutation of 1/3rd of his pension. Thereafter, there were some correspondences between the State Board and the Central Board with regard to the pension of the petitioner and his application for commutation, and finally by memorandum dated 6.10.94 of the Chairman, State Board, the petitioner was informed that fixation of his monthly pension at Rs. 2,100 is final and his prayer for commutation of pension may again be pursued with the Central Board taking into account his monthly pension of Rs. 2,100, if agreed upon by the petitioner. 2,100 is final and his prayer for commutation of pension may again be pursued with the Central Board taking into account his monthly pension of Rs. 2,100, if agreed upon by the petitioner. By another memorandum dated 10.11.94 of the Chairman, State Board, the petitioner was informed that since the period of service of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 has not been regularised by the State Board and since the extension of service of the petitioner for the period from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 has not been approved by the Central Board, and as the Accountant General (Audit), Tripura has raised objections to the extension of service of the petitioner and has taken a view that an amount of Rs. 52,505 paid in excess to the petitioner for the period from 1.4.90 to 31.7.93 was recoverable, and as the Central Board had directed the State Board not to make any payment of relief on pension to the petitioner and adjust the same towards over payment, no payment of relief on pension would be made to the petitioner from the month of November, 1994 and, the same would be adjusted towards over payment made to the petitioner by the State Board till recovery of the excess amount. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has prayed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 583 of 1994 for quashing the memorandum dated 6.10.94 of the Chairman of the State Board fixing his monthly pension finally at Rs. 2,100 and the memorandum dated 10.11.94 of the Chairman of the State Board to the effect that no payment of relief on pension would be made to the petitioner until the excess payment made to him is recovered by way of adjustment of such relief on pension. In the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 583 of 1994, the petitioner has also prayed for a Mandamus on the State and the Central Boards to regularise the services of the petitioner for the period from 1.4.90 to 30.4.90 and to approve the extension of service of the petitioner for the period from 1.5.90 to 30.6.91 under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218 of 1997, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the State and the Central Boards to pay the commutation value of pension to the petitioner within such reasonable time as this Court may deem fit and proper. 4. Mr. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218 of 1997, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the State and the Central Boards to pay the commutation value of pension to the petitioner within such reasonable time as this Court may deem fit and proper. 4. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Fundamental Rule 56 (d), a Govt servant can be granted extension of service after he attains the age of 58 years, if such extension is in the public interest. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner were extended in the public interest by the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89 and by the Chairman of the State Board by office memorandum dated 25.4.90 and office memorandum dated 13.6.90, and by the Vice Chairman of the State Board by office order dated 30.4.91, and pursuant to the said extensions, the petitioner worked as the Secretary of the State Board upto the end of June, 1991. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to salary and allowance as Secretary of the State Board right upto 30.6.91 and his pension has to be fixed accordingly at the rate of Rs. 2,150 per month with admissible allowances. Mr. Choudhury further argued that a set of Rules known as the rules of the Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board were applicable to the State Board and under Rules 2 (vi) and 10 (1) of the said Rules, the State Board had the power to appoint the Secretary of the State Board in consultation with the Central Board. In the instant case, the State Board had appointed the petitioner as Secretary of the State Board by way of extension and had sent the minutes of its meeting held on 27.12.89 extending the services of the petitioner as Secretary of the State Board to the Central Board. He contended that the word 'consultation' does not mean 'prior approval' and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner on extension as Secretary of the State Board cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the Central Board had not granted prior approval to his appointment by way of extension. Hence, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavits before the Court that the extension of services of the petitioner without the approval of the Central Board was illegal, has no merit. Mr. Hence, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavits before the Court that the extension of services of the petitioner without the approval of the Central Board was illegal, has no merit. Mr. Choudhury referred to Annexure III (a), III (b), III (c), III (d) and III (e) to the writ petition in WP (C) No. 583 of 1994 to show that extension of service was granted to one Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha, a driver of the State Board, and contended that the respondents had acted in a discriminatory manner by not regularising the extension of service of the petitioner. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that at any rate since the petitioner has already rendered service as the Secretary of the State Board right upto 30.6.91 and has drawn his salary and allowances for such service for the period upto 30.6.91, the impugned memorandum dated 6.10.94 fixing his pension on the basis of his service upto 31.3.90 at the rate of Rs. 2,100 PM and the impugned memorandum dated 10.11.94 for recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 52,505 from the relief on pension to the petitioner on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner from 1.4.90 to 30.6.91 was not regular, are liable to be quashed. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that under the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, which were applicable to the petitioner, the petitioner had a right to commuted of his pension and, therefore, the respondents were obliged under the law to grant the said commutation to him. In this context, he pointed out that as far back as on 16.7.91, the petitioner had applied for commutation of 1/3rd of his pension to Rs. 2,150 PM and the proposal for commutation was forwarded by the State Board to the Central Board, but the petitioner has not been granted such commutation of '/3rd of his pension in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, 1981. Mr. Choudhury vehemently argued that this is a fit case in which this Court should direct the respondents to grant the commuted value of pension with interest to the petitioner. In support of this submission, Mr. Choudhury cited the decision of the Supreme Court in OP Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2257 , in which the Court granted interest @ 12% per annum on pension which was not paid in time. In support of this submission, Mr. Choudhury cited the decision of the Supreme Court in OP Gupta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2257 , in which the Court granted interest @ 12% per annum on pension which was not paid in time. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Agarwal vs. State of UP, AIR 1999 SC 1212 , wherein the Court found that there was a delay of five years with regard to payment of pension and other retiral benefits to a Govt servant, and granted penal interest of Rs. l (one) lac to the Govt servant. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, relying on the counter affidavits filed by the respondents in the two cases, submitted that it would be clear from Rules 2 (vi) and 10 of the Rules of the Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board, (for short, Board Rules) that the Secretary of the State Board can only be appointed by the State Board in consultation with the Central Board. Hence, without consultation with the Central Board, the State Board could not appoint the petitioner as the Secretary of the State Board by way of extension of his service. He further argued that even under Fundamental Rule 56 (d), extension of service can be granted in favour of a Govt servant only with the sanction of the appropriate authority and in case of extension of service of the Secretary of the State Board, the appropriate authority would be the Central Board as would be clear from the language of Rules 2 (vi) and 10 of the Board Rules. In this context, Mr. Das pointed out that 50% of the expenditure on the staff and the establishment of the State Board is met by the Central Board and, therefore, no decision can be taken by the State Board with regard to appointment of any staff in the State Board which will burden the Central Board with additional expenditure without prior consultation with the Central Board. Mr. Mr. Das submitted that when the State Board sought to extend the services of Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha, driver, the Central Board in its letter dated 31.3.89 to the Chairman of the State Board objected to such extension of service of said Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha, and observed that the State Board might make necessary provision in the State Board's budget for payment of retirement benefits to Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha. In the said letter dated 31.3.89, the Central Board further stated that in future the State Board should not retain the services of any employee after superannuation. Despite the aforesaid view taken by the Central Board in its letter dated 31.3.89 to the Chairman of the State Board that no employee should be retained in service after superannuation, the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12:89 took a decision to extend the services of the petitioner as Secretary of the State Board without consulting the Central Board and sent the minutes of the said meeting to the Central Board. But by letter dated 22.3.90 of the Central Board to the Chairman of the State Board, the Central Board requested the Chairman of the State Board not to continue the petitioner after his superannuation without prior approval of the Central Board and he be relieved of his duty on the date of his superannuation. Notwithstanding the said letter dated 22.3.90 to the Chairman of the State Board, the petitioner was continued in service even after his age of superannuation on 31.3.90. Mr. Das also refer to the letter dated 7.6.90 of the Executive Director of the Central Board to the Chairman of the State Board clearly stating that the Central Board was against setting a precedent in the matter of giving extension of service to any employee and that the petitioner should be relieved with immediate effect. He also referred to the letter dated 19.4.90 of the Joint Director of Central Board to the Chairman of the State Board to the effect that the proposal for extension of service of the petitioner as approved in the meeting of the State Board could not be approved as it was not considered necessary to prolong his service beyond his date of superannuation. Mr. Mr. Das vehemently argued that notwithstanding the said clear communications by the Central Board to the State Board disapproving the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of his superannuation, the State Board, its Chairman and its Vice Chairman appeared to have been influenced by the petitioner who was then working as the Secretary of the State Board, as a result of which the services of the petitioner a were extended beyond the age of his superannuation contrary to the rules and the instructions of the Central Board. According to Mr. Das, therefore, the extension of services of the petitioner beyond the age of his superannuation was illegal, and the petitioner was not entitled to any salary and allowances beyond the date of his superannuation, ie, 31.3.90. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Kishun vs. Union of India & others, 1997 (2) SLR 418 , in which b the Supreme Court has clearly held that even where a Govt servant has worked beyond his age of superannuation, he has no right to claim the salary in case he was not to continue in service as per law. Mr. Das argued that since in this case, the petitioner as the Secretary of the State Board was fully aware of the Rules and the communications of the Central Board to the State Board to the effect that no extension should be granted beyond the age of superannuation and yet had managed extension illegally in his favour, the Court should not in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution grant any relief to him with regard to his pay and allowances after his age of superannuation and with regard to his pension. 6. The crucial question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner served beyond his age of superannuation in accordance with the relevant rules and was entitled to salary and allowances beyond his age of superannuation and the higher pension of Rs. 2,150 PM with admissible allowances taking his date of retirement as 30.6.91 instead of 31.3.90. The Board Rules do not provide for any extension of service of an employee of the State Board beyond the date of superannuation. 2,150 PM with admissible allowances taking his date of retirement as 30.6.91 instead of 31.3.90. The Board Rules do not provide for any extension of service of an employee of the State Board beyond the date of superannuation. Rules 2 (vi) and 10 (1) of the Board Rules on which reliance was placed by the counsel for both the parties, are quoted herein below : “2 (vi) 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Board appointed by the Board in consultation with the Central Social Welfare Board. 10.(1) Powers of the Board: The Board shall have power to make appointment to posts sanctioned by the Central Board on terms to be prescribed with the prior approval of the Central Board, except the Secretary of the Board who shall be appointed by the Board in consultation with the Central Board.” A plain reading of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that they apply to appointments including the appointment of Secretary of the State Board and do not speak of extension of service of the employees including the Secretary of the State Board. Assuming, however, that extension of service of an employee or the Secretary of the State Board after the age of superannuation is a kind of appointment, the said rules make it clear that the Secretary of the State Board can only be appointed by the State Board 'in consultation with' the Central Board. It is true as has been submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the word 'consultation' does not mean 'approval', but the words 'in consultation' in the aforesaid Board Rules would mean that before the Secretary of the State Board is appointed by the State Board, the process of consultation with the Central Board for such appointment must be initiated and completed. This interpretation of the aforesaid Board Rules relating to the appointment of Secretary of the State Board was followed both by the State Board and the Central Board at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner on absorption as Secretary of the State Board. This interpretation of the aforesaid Board Rules relating to the appointment of Secretary of the State Board was followed both by the State Board and the Central Board at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner on absorption as Secretary of the State Board. This would be clear from the memorandum dated 16.8.80 of the State Board permanently absorbing the petitioner as Secretary of the State Board in which it had been clearly stated that the petitioner was being permanently absorbed on appointment to the post of Secretary in the establishment of the State Board with effect from the forenoon of 12.8.80 "in pursuance of the Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi, letter No. F. 1427 78/SB Adm dated 10.4.80". The said memorandum dated 16.8.80 was addressed to the petitioner, and has been annexed to the writ petition in WP (C) 583 of 1994 as Annexure II. The petitioner, therefore, was fully aware that he was appointed as the Secretary of the State Board by way of permanent absorption only after consultation with the Central Board and in pursuance of the letter dated 10.4.80 of the Central Board. Thus, as per the accepted procedure for, appointment of Secretary of the State Board, the Central Board has to be consulted first before the State Board appoints its Secretary. Yet in the meeting of the State Board held on 27.12.89, the State Board straightway decided to extend the services of the petitioner for a period of one year as Secretary of the State Board after he attained the age of 58 years in the public interest without initiating the process of consultation with the Central Board for such extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years. The appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the State Board by way of extension of his service beyond the age of 58 years by the State Board therefore was contrary to the Board Rules. 7. FR 56 (d) on which reliance was placed by Mr. Choudhury for sustaining the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years in the public interest by the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89 also is of no assistance to the petitioner. 7. FR 56 (d) on which reliance was placed by Mr. Choudhury for sustaining the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years in the public interest by the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89 also is of no assistance to the petitioner. In the first place, the said FR 56 (d) might have been applicable to the petitioner when he continued to be a Govt servant of the Govt of Tripura, Education Department and was on deputation to the State Board. But after his permanent absorption as the Secretary of State Board by memorandum dated 16.8.80 with effect from the forenoon of 12th August, 1980 it was doubtful as to whether the said FR 56 (d) was at all applicable to the petitioner. Assuming, however, that the said FR 56 (d) was applicable to the petitioner, extension of service of a Govt servant under the said FR 56 (d) beyond the age of 58 years can only be granted "with the sanction of the appropriate authority" if such extension is in public interest and the grounds therefore are recorded in writing. In the instant case, the petitioner was initially appointed as the Secretary of the State Board on absorption as indicated above pursuant to the letter dated 10.4.80 of the Central Board. Thus, the Central Board was the appropriate authority within the meaning of FR 56 (d) whose sanction was required for the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years in the public interest. Since, the Central Board had refused to grant such sanction to the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years, the extension of service of the petitioner beyond 31.3.90 when he attained the age of 58 years, could not also be sustained under FR 56 (d). 8. Regarding the contention of Mr. Since, the Central Board had refused to grant such sanction to the extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years, the extension of service of the petitioner beyond 31.3.90 when he attained the age of 58 years, could not also be sustained under FR 56 (d). 8. Regarding the contention of Mr. Choudhury that the refusal to grant extension of service of the petitioner beyond the age of superannuation while allowing such extension to Sri Jatindra Mohan Sana, selection grade driver of the a State Board was discriminatory, it appears from the letters dated 4.8.88 and 31.3.89 of the Central Board to the Chairman of the State Board that the Central Board had objected to the grant of extension of service of the said Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha, selection grade driver of the State Board and had made it clear that in future the State Board would not retain the service of any employee after superannuation. Thus, so far as the Central Board was concerned, it had not b acted in any discriminatory manner in refusing to allow extension of service of the petitioner beyond his age of superannuation and had followed a uniform policy of not allowing extension of service of any employee of the State Board beyond the age of superannuation. The State Board, however, had allowed extension in favour of said Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha without the prior approval of the Central Board. Such grant of extension beyond the age of superannuation without the prior approval of the Central Board cannot confer on the petitioner a right under Article 14 of the Constitution to claim similar benefit as it is now well settled by the Supreme Court and this Court that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by a person to claim benefits which have been illegally conferred on others on the ground that denial of such illegal benefits would amount to discrimination. (See Harpaul Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, and Dr. Bimal Bhowmick vs. Dr. Mrinal Kanti Bhowmick, 2000 (1) GLT 158 (2000 (1) GLJ), respectively). 9. (See Harpaul Kaur Chahal vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, and Dr. Bimal Bhowmick vs. Dr. Mrinal Kanti Bhowmick, 2000 (1) GLT 158 (2000 (1) GLJ), respectively). 9. It is no doubt true that on account of extension granted by the State Board, the petitioner continued in service even after his date of superannuation on 31.3.90 right upto 30.6.91, and would, therefore, normally be entitled to his £ pay and allowances for the said period upto 30.6.91 and determination of his pension taking his date of retirement as 30.6.91. But-as has been held by the Supreme Court in Radha Kishun vs. Union of India & others (supra) ( 1997 (2) SLR 418 ), a person has no right to claim salary, etc if he was not to continue to be in service as per law. The petitioner, Radha Kishun, in the said case was admittedly to retire on 31.5.91 but remained in office till 31.5.94 enjoying all J benefits of service. Action was taken by the authorities to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond 31.5.91. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench against the said action for recovery, but the said application was dismissed. When he approached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court observed : “....We are aghast to notice the boldness within which it is claimed that he is entitled to all the benefits with effect from the above said date when admittedly he was to retire on May 31,1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of the officer concerned in the establishment in the concerned section for not taking any action to have the petitioner retired from service on his attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per law, he has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the case that he was re-employed in the public interest, after attaining superannuation. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits. 4. It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits. 4. It is then contended that the petitioner would have conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he cannot be denied of the legitimate salary to which he is entitled to. Though the argument is alluring, we cannot accept the contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action taken by the authorities. If the contention is given acceptance, it would be field day for manipulation with impunity and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced sympathy. It cannot and should not be given countenance.” It will be clear from the aforesaid observations that the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant service benefits to a person who had worked beyond his age of superannuation on the ground that his continuance in service was not in accordance with law and on the ground that interference would be field day for manipulation with impunity and would be based on misplaced sympathy. In the instant case, the petitioner being the Secretary of the State Board was well versed with the Board Rules and as indicated above was well aware that his own appointment as the Secretary of the State Board by way of permanent absorption was only pursuant to the consultation with the Central Board in accordance with Rules 2 (vi) and 10 (1) of the Board Rules. As far back as on 31.3.89, the Central Board had written to the Chairman of the State Board in the context of extension of service of Sri Jatindra Mohan Saha, selection grade driver, of the State Board in the following terms : “It may kindly be noted that in future the State Board should not retain the services of any employee after superannuation and the pension cases should be finalised in time”. Despite the said communication dated 31.3.89, the State Board of which the petitioner was the Secretary went ahead and granted extension of service of the petitioner as the Secretary of the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89. Despite the said communication dated 31.3.89, the State Board of which the petitioner was the Secretary went ahead and granted extension of service of the petitioner as the Secretary of the State Board in its meeting held on 27.12.89. But when the minutes of the said meeting were sent by the State Board to the Central Board, the Central Board sent the following communication to the Chairman of the State Board : “The Central Social Welfare Board Jeevan Deep, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-11001 File No. F.5-20/Min/90-SB Adm Dated: 22.3.90 The Chairman, Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Agartala Sub: Minutes of the State Board Meeting held on 27.12.89 Reg. Madam, I am directed to refer to item No. 3 (14) of the Minutes of the State Board Meeting held on 27.12.89 relating to extension of service for a period of one year after he attains the age of 58 years and to stale that CSWB has not received any specific proposal in this respect. ; In this connection, you are requested to specifically refer to CSWB any point on which action is proposed to be taken. Despatch of Minutes should be taken only as an intimation to the CSWB later to be taken specifically by the State Board. You are also requested not to continue Shri BC Ray after his superannuation without prior approval of the Central Board and he may be relieved of his duty on the date of his superannuation. Yours faithfully, Sd/- KJ Kakanwar, Deputy Director (SB Admn)” It appears from the endorsement in xerox copy of the said letter dated 22.3.90 annexed to the Affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents in WP (C) 583 of 1994 that the said letter dated 22.3.90 was received by the State Board on 277 28.3.90 and in any case before 31.3.90 which was the date of superannuation of the petitioner. In the aforesaid letter, therefore, the Central Board expressly requested the Chairman of the State Board not to continue the petitioner after his superannuation without the prior approval of the Central Board and that he be relieved of his duty on the date of his superannuation. Since the petitioner was the Secretary of the State Board, the Court can reasonably presume that the petitioner had the knowledge of the aforesaid communication dated 22.3.90 of the Central Board and yet continued on extension beyond his age of superannuation, ie 31.3.90. Since the petitioner was the Secretary of the State Board, the Court can reasonably presume that the petitioner had the knowledge of the aforesaid communication dated 22.3.90 of the Central Board and yet continued on extension beyond his age of superannuation, ie 31.3.90. Even after the said letter dated 22.3.90, the Joint Director and the Executive Director of the Central Board had addressed letters dated 19.4.90 and 7.6.90 respectively to the Chairman of the State Board objecting to the continuance of the petitioner on extension of service, and it is reasonable again to presume that the petitioner as the Secretary of the State Board was aware of the said communications dated 19.4.90 and 7.6.90. Notwithstanding the said communications, the petitioner continued as the Secretary of the State Board on extension. On these peculiar facts when the very extension of service of the petitioner beyond his age of superannuation on 31.3.90 was contrary to the relevant Rules and was illegal, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum dated 6.10.94 fixing the monthly pension of the petitioner at Rs.2,100 on the basis of his date of superannuation on 31.3.90 and the impugned memorandum dated 10.11.94 for recovery of Rs.52,505 paid in excess to the petitioner on account of his continuance in service beyond 31.3.90. Hence, WP (C) 583 of 1994 filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 10. Coming now to WP (C) 218 of 1997, in which the petitioner has prayed, for a direction on the respondents to pay the commutation value of his pension in accordance with the Rules, 1981, it appears from the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1 that the request of the petitioner for commutation of pension was duly intimated to the Central Board seeking approval for payment of the same, but the Central Board is yet to intimate the State Board on the course of action to be taken. In paragraph 29 of the Affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the entire issue of commutation of pension of the petitioner will depend upon the question as to whether or not the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1.4.90 to 306.91 is regularised and this question has now been decided in WP (C) 583 of 1994. As has been held above, the petitioner was not entitled to regularisation of his service for the period from 1.4.90 to 30.6.91 contrary to the Rules. The consequence is that the petitioner is entitled to a monthly pension of Rs.2,100. In Rule 3 (j) of the Rules, 1981, it has been clearly stated that pension means any class of pension including compassionate allowance but does not include extra pension and the amount, by whatever name called, granted by the Govt to a pension as compensation for higher cost of a living. Thus, the relief on pension is not included in pension for the purpose of commutation under the Rules, 1981. Accordingly, even though under the memorandum dated 10.11.94 impugned in WP (C) 583 of 1994 and sustained by this judgment, relief on pension is to be adjusted towards the excess payment of Rs.52,505 made to the petitioner till recovery of the excess amount, the petitioner is still entitled to consideration of his case for commutation of his pension of Rs. 2,100 PM in accordance with the relevant rules. As a matter of fact, in the letter dated 7.1.93 of the Chairman of the State Board to the Executive Director of the Central Board, copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition in WP (C) 218 of 1997 as Annexure I, the Chairman has made the following request: “.... Since the monthly pensioned amount of Rs.2,100- has been re-fixed by the State Board taking into account last basic pay of Sri BC Roy that he would draw on the date of his superannuation i.e. on 31.3.90, it is earnestly requested kindly to convey the approval of the Central Social Welfare Board in matters of sanction as well as payment of commuted value of-pension amounting to Rs.87,864 (Rs eighty seven thousand eight hundred sixty four) only as calculated below to Sri BC Roy, Ex Secretary of the State Board at your earliest convenience subject to the recovery of the excess payment made to Sri BC Roy on account of retirement benefits ....” The Executive Director of the Central Board, respondent No. 3, will consider the aforesaid request and pass orders in accordance with the relevant Rules and communicate the same to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment from the petitioner. 11. 11. The decisions of the Supreme Court in OP Gupta vs. Union of India (supra), ( AIR 1987 SC 2257 ), and Uma Agarwal vs. State of UP (supra), ( AIR 1999 SC 1212 ), in which the Supreme Court granted interest on the pension which had not been paid in time are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioner in fact started drawing his pension at the rate of Rs.2,150- PM soon after his retirement and the respondents reduced the said pension to Rs.2,100- PM with admissible allowances after having held that the petitioner was entitled to a pension of Rs.2,100- PM instead of Rs.2,150- PM. Further, the delay in disposal of the application of the petitioner for commutation of his pension by the authorities is on account of the dispute raised by the petitioner that he was entitled to a pension of Rs.2,150- PM and not Rs.2,100- PM. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to direct the respondents to pay any interest to the petitioner. 12. In the result, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 583 of 1994 is dismissed and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218 of 1997 is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.