ORDER 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA IS BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. RESPONDENT 1 WORKED AS A GODOWN-KEEPER IN THE FOOD SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF THE FORMER STATE OF BOMBAY BETWEEN 6-12-1944 UP TO 31-3-1955. HE COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF QUALIFYING SERVICE; HE CAME TO BE RETRENCHED FROM SERVICE ON 1-4-1955 ON ACCOUNT OF ABOLITION OF THE POST OF GODOWN-KEEPER. HE APPLIED FOR PENSION IN THE YEAR 1979 TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIJAPUR. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KARNATAKA REFUSED TO SANCTION THE PENSION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NEVER WORKED IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. HE FILED WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SEEKING RELIEF. THE HIGH COURT TRANSFERRED THE WRIT PETITION TO THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, WHICH TRIBUNAL GRANTED RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENT. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, RAISED AN OBJECTION THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY PENSION UNDER THE RULES. IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS ALLOWED. HENCE THIS APPEAL BY THE STATE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT STATE CONTENDED THAT THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WAS NOT LIABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF PENSION WHICH POINT WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE OTHER CONTENTION WAS THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PENSION ACCORDING TO THE RULES, WHICH PLEA WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE HIGH COURT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUED SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND GRANTING RELIEF TO HIM HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD OR VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, BUT WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 3. THE APPELLANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THIS ORDER, IF NOT ALREADY COMPLIED WITH.