D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned Circular memo No. 8369/251/pen-1/85-2, dated 11-06-1985, issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner while working as Higher grade Teacher retired on 31-10-1988 and since then she has been drawing her service pension. It appears that her husband, who also was working as Teacher, died on 09-01-1967. After the death of her husband, as per Clause 6 (ii) in G. O. Ms. No. 340 finance and Planning (FW. PEN. I) department, dated 30-12-1982, the petitioner was being paid financial assistance @ rs. 100/- per month, which was enhanced to rs. 370/- per month at a later date, and accordingly she was getting the said financial assistance from 01-04-1981 to 31-03-1992. While so, the respondents issued the impugned Circular Memo, dated 11-06-1985, clarifying that the financial assistance is given on compassionate consideration and hence the said assistance is not admissible to the widows who are employed, even if otherwise eligible. Consequently, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 19-04-1993, disentitling the petitioner of the financial assistance extended through G. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, and ordered recovery of the amount paid till the date of impugned circular Memo, dated 11-06-1985. Challenging the said Circular Memo, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned government Pleader for Finance and planning. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the government of Andhra Pradesh issued g. O. Ms. No. 340 Finance and Planning (FW. PEN. I) Department, dated 30-12-1982, wherein sub-clause (b) (ii) of Clause 5 reads as follows:"widows of teachers of Aided and local Bodies Schools who died on or after 01-01-1964 but before 31-03-1973 while in service and who had put in regular service for a total period of not less than one year at the time of their death. " ( 5 ) IT is also not in dispute that the petitioner by virtue of the operation of the above said clause was being paid the financial assistance after the death of her husband. Further, the benefit of financial assistance has not been created by any statute but by the above said g. O. Ms. " ( 5 ) IT is also not in dispute that the petitioner by virtue of the operation of the above said clause was being paid the financial assistance after the death of her husband. Further, the benefit of financial assistance has not been created by any statute but by the above said g. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, which was admittedly issued by the Government under the name of the Government of andhra Pradesh. ( 6 ) IT appears, upon a clarification sought by the Director of Local Funds Audit, hyderabad, through the impugned Circular memo, dated 11-06-1985, it was clarified that the financial assistance given on compassionate consideration is not admissible to the widows who are employed, even if otherwise eligible, for the said financial assistance. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the impugned Circular Memo, dt. 11-06-1985, on more than one count, but the crucial aspect to be looked into is as to whether the respondents have jurisdiction to issue the impugned Circular Memo dated 11-06-1985, or not? ( 8 ) IN this context, it is to be noted that g. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, was issued under the name of the Governor. ( 9 ) ARTICLE 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution of india deals with the definition of law as under:""law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. " ( 10 ) ARTICLE 166 (1) postulates that all executive action of the Government of a state shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, G. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, is a law having force of law since the same was issued under the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. ( 12 ) THE next question is whether such a law can be interfered with by way of modification or clarification etc. , by issuing a circular like the impugned one in the present case. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, is a law having force of law since the same was issued under the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. ( 12 ) THE next question is whether such a law can be interfered with by way of modification or clarification etc. , by issuing a circular like the impugned one in the present case. ( 13 ) IT is necessary to refer to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads thus:"power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws:- Where, by any Central Act or regulation, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rule or bye-laws so issued. ( 14 ) A reading of the above section makes it abundantly clear that when a power to issue orders, rules etc. , are conferred on an authority, in such a case, as a necessary corollary the power to amend, vary or rescind any such orders shall vest with such authority, in the same manner. ( 15 ) AS already pointed out, g. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, which was issued by the State under the name of the Governor, has got the statutory force by virtue of the operation of Article 13 (3) (a) read with Article 166 (1) of the Constitution of India. If at all, the Government desires to amend or modify the same, such a thing is permissible in the same manner just as the original order was issued: ( 16 ) IN the instant case, since a clarification has been issued as regards the extension of the benefit to the widows of the deceased teachers on the sole ground that the scheme introduced under G. O. Ms. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, was on compassionate grounds, it is not proper for this court to express any opinion as regards the intention of the government in issuing the said G. O. , while extending the benefits to the employed widows of the teachers. No. 340, dated 30-12-1982, was on compassionate grounds, it is not proper for this court to express any opinion as regards the intention of the government in issuing the said G. O. , while extending the benefits to the employed widows of the teachers. However, the only objection is that the said clarification, which - is in the nature of amendment or modification to the said G. O. , should have been issued/made in the same manner as the original G. O. , was brought into existence under the name of the Governor. In other words, since the impugned circular memo was not issued under the name of the governor, it has no force of law and as such incapable of interfering with the earlier G. O. , issued under the name of the Governor, which has got statutory force. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to hold that the impugned Circular memo, dated 11-06-1985, and all other consequeatial letters issued by the respondents in this regard are liable to be, and are hereby set aside on the sole ground of jurisdiction. Consequently, it follows that any amount recovered from the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned circular memo, dated 11-6-1985, be refunded to her forthwith. ( 18 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.