JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — Heard Shri N. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner, who is an expert in tribal languages, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the opposite parties to grant him pension for his rendering service in teach¬ing tribal languages to the officials of the State Government and social workers working in tribal areas. 3. The facts narrated in this writ petition tend to reveal that the petitioner is an expert in tribal languages. The peti¬tioner after resigning from Govt. service established an insti¬tute, namely, ‘Institute of Tribal Dialects and Culture’ where top officials of the State Govt. and other persons including social workers working in the tribal areas were taught tribal languages/dialects which was useful while dealing with the matters relating to the tribal people. The efforts of the peti¬tioner also helped the Government in implementing its Policy of teaching tribal languages to the State Government Officials with a view to eradicate communication gap between the tribals and Govt. officials. The State Government also in order to evince interest amongst the Government officials to learn tribal lan¬guages extended cash rewards and financial assistance to those Government servants, who passed the tribal language test and the institution of the petitioner used to impart language training to many State Govt. officials. The General Body of the Institute comprising amongst others the then Finance Minister, Chief Secre¬tary, Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department, Director-cum-Joint Secretary to Government, Harijan & Tribal Welfare Depart¬ment, Collector, Puri, Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar, several M.L.As., Journalists, Secretary, Utkal Adivasi Mangala Samiti, an Anthropologist and other distinguished persons in its meeting held on 25.3.1981, inter alia, resolved in Annexure-7 as follows : “ xxx xxx xxx 4. The Chief Secretary & Development Commissioner appre¬ciated the commendable work of the Institute and suggested that as the H. & T.W. Department has started a Tribal Academy (non-official) to avoid duplicacy in the work of the Institute and Academy should teach Tribal languages on regional basis with perfect co-operation. Further he suggested that the respective Departments will encourage the Institute with financial assis¬tance according to number of Officers under training of that Deptt. He also suggested that the accounts of the Institute should be properly maintained with the help of Audit and Accounts Officers. Further he suggested that the respective Departments will encourage the Institute with financial assis¬tance according to number of Officers under training of that Deptt. He also suggested that the accounts of the Institute should be properly maintained with the help of Audit and Accounts Officers. It is also resolved that the Institute will teach tribal languages to State Govt. Officers in Regional basis such as Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh, Sambalpur, Puri and Phulbani and the Tribal Academy may take up teaching in Koraput, Kalahan¬di, Ganjam, Dhenkanal, Bolangir, Balasore and Cuttack. xxx xxx xxx 7. Shri Nagen Beuria, Prof. Mahapatra Nilamani Sahu and Sri Gopal Misra suggested that Sri Upendra Misra, Editor, Banafu¬la, for the first time in Orissa has started Institute of Tribal languages, trained up Govt. Officers, devoted 12 years and ful¬filled the aims and objects laid down in Government Resolution No. 22213-TRW dated 6.11.64. He should be given a pension of Rs. 500/- P.M. for the untiring work for the State. It was also resolved that Govt. be moved to sanction a pension of Rs. 500/- P.M. in favour of Sri Upendra Misra, Editor, Banafula, for successfully executing Govt. Resolution referred to above. xxx xxx xxx” The then Minister, Harijan and Tribal Welfare, Orissa, after going through the resolutions of the General Body meeting of the Institute as per Annexure-7 as well as the recommendation of the Collector, Puri, observed that the petitioner had definite con¬tribution to the Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department (hereina¬fter ‘H. and T. W. Department’) for implementing the policy of teaching tribal languages to the State Govt. officers working in the field for which he suggested in his notes dated 16.12.1989 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary for sanction of monthly pension of Rs. 500/- in favour of the petitioner with effect from 25.3.1981, vide Annexure-8. The Joint Secretary to Government in H. & T.W. Department by letter dated 27.3.1990, Annexure-9, while forward¬ing the relevant papers relating to sanction of pension requested the Tourism, Sports & Culture (Culture) Department, Govt. of Orissa, (hereinafter called “Culture Department”) to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of pension since H. & T.W. Department do not sanction pension of this kind. The Culture Dett. of Orissa, (hereinafter called “Culture Department”) to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of pension since H. & T.W. Department do not sanction pension of this kind. The Culture Dett. by letter dated 12.7.1990, Annexure-10, wrote back to the H. & T.W. Department saying that the scheme for sanction of pension to persons distinguished in the field of Art and Litera¬ture was administered by the Culture Department and as the activ¬ities of the petitioner have been dedicated for introduction of tribal dialects amongst the State Government Officials, it would be appropriate if the H. & T.W. Department would consider to sanction any financial assistance to the petitioner. It is worth¬while to mention here that on 21.6.1991 the Chief Minister pro¬vided financial assistance of Rs. 10,000/- from the Chief Minis¬ter’s Relief Fund, vide Annexure-11. But the plight of the peti¬tioner did not end as no sanction of pension came. On 15.3.1996 Shri A.R. Majhi, the Legislator of Laxmipur Constituency of Koraput district recommended the case of the petitioner to the Government for sanction of pension vide Annexure-13 stating that the aims and objects of teaching tribal languages and the efforts made by the petitioner were to bridge over the communication gap between the tribals and the Government officials in effective implementation of various developmental schemes and the petition¬er had done this pioneering work with a view to help the Govern¬ment officials and social workers of various non-Governmental organizations to overcome the practical difficulties on their path and fulfil the various objectives envisaged in the plan and non-plan schemes in learning the tribal dialects and culture and also help in understanding their actual needs, hopes and aspira¬tions and devising ways and means to fulfil the same. In An¬neuxre-13, it was also indicated that the untiring efforts made by the petitioner in this regard helped the Police Officials to investigate into the criminal cases on the right direction which would assist the Judicial Officers in dispensing justice in cases lodged against the tribals. The culture on tribal dialects helped the doctors to work in tribal areas with effective communion with tribal patients and know their ailments. Annexure-13 further indicated that the petitioner had opened branch institutes in tribal districts and sub-divisions and published books on tribal languages, culture and edited a journal to highlight the problems of tribal people. The culture on tribal dialects helped the doctors to work in tribal areas with effective communion with tribal patients and know their ailments. Annexure-13 further indicated that the petitioner had opened branch institutes in tribal districts and sub-divisions and published books on tribal languages, culture and edited a journal to highlight the problems of tribal people. He also engaged tribal teachers and trained up thousands officers of various Departments of the Government in the Institute. Out of them, 380 officers came out successful and received cash rewards from Government, vide Govt. Circular No. 32691 - TRW dated 8.11.1997. The result-oriented works of the Institute and the untiring efforts of the petitioner received high appreciation from the concerned Collectors and the Chief Secretary. On 6.4.1996 the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Secretary vide Annexure-14 to consider his claim for grant of pension. But ultimately rejection of the petitioner’s claim for pension by the Government was communicated vide the letter dated 18.7.1996, Annexure-15, saying in one line that “Government after careful consideration has been pleased not to entertain such proposal”. The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to materalize the proposal given by the H. & T.W. Department to grant pension of Rs. 500/- per month to him, which has been revised to Rs. 1000/- in the meantime. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the rejection of the case of the petitioner is totally an out-come of non-application of mind by the authorities because the letter of the Culture Department in Annexure-10 does not indicate that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the relevant Rules, i.e., the Orissa Pension to Indigent Artists Rules, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the “1976 Rules”). It is further submitted that refusal by the Cul¬ture Department to entertain the recommendation of H. & T.W. Department is also not in terms of the 1976 Rules. 5. Two counter affidavits have been filed - one on behalf of opposite party No.2 - the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, H. & T.W. Department, and the other on behalf of opposite party No. 3-Secretary to Government in Tourism, Sports & Cultural Affairs Department. 5. Two counter affidavits have been filed - one on behalf of opposite party No.2 - the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, H. & T.W. Department, and the other on behalf of opposite party No. 3-Secretary to Government in Tourism, Sports & Cultural Affairs Department. The case of the petitioner, as per opposite party No.2, is that the resolutions adopted in the General Body meeting of the Institute held on 25.3.1981 (Annexure-7) cannot be treated as the decision of the Government nor is there any scheme under the Tribal Welfare Department to grant such pension for which the application of the petitioner along with other papers was recom¬mended to the Department of Culture for sanction of pension and as the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the 1976 Rules, the petitioner’s case could not be considered. The counter affidavit filed by the Culture Department only reiterates the stand taken by the H. & T.W. Department. It is further stated that neither the petitioner has made any signifi¬cant contribution in the field of literature, music, dance etc. nor is he a person distinguished in the field of Arts or litera¬ture for which sanction of pension to the petitioner was not per¬missible under the aforesaid Rules. 6. As the facts narrated in the writ application go to show, the petitioner was not only rendering service in teaching tribal languages, he was also publishing a magazine, namely, “Banafula” highlighting various aspects of the tribal life and culture in Orissa, and the aforesaid fact has neither been denied nor disputed by the opposite parties in their counter affidavits. Sub-rules (i) and (v) of Rule-4 of 1976 Rules, i.e., the Orissa Pension to Indigent Artists Rules, 1976, provide that an artist, in order to be eligible to the pension, should be at least 60 years of age if a male and at least 50 years of age if a female, and should have made significant contribution to the literature, music, dance and theatre of Orissa or to painting and sculpture. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Rule 4 (i) and (v) of the 1976 Rules, because the petitioner has made a significant contri¬bution to the tribal literature, which has been recognized by the said authorities time and again. Certain documents annexed to the writ application also support the claim of the petitioner. 7. Certain documents annexed to the writ application also support the claim of the petitioner. 7. This is a peculiar case where technicality has given a back seat to the skill and contribution of the petitioner. Ac¬cording to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word “Art” means : “1. Skill, Sing, Skill as the result of knowledge and practice; 2. Human skill; 3. The learning of the schools; 4. Technical or professional skill” and the word “Artist” means : “1A. learned man, a Master of Arts : 2. One who pursues some practical science; ...” According to the said Dictionary, “Liter¬ature” means : “1. Acquaintance with ‘letters’ or books; literary culture; 2. Literary work or production; the activity or profes¬sion of a man of letters; the realm of letters; 3. Literary pro¬ductions as a whole;...” From the facts narrated above, it ap¬pears that the Department of Culture while returning the recom¬mendation of the H. & T.W. Department has not considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the rules governing the field. Rule 3 of the 1976 Rules deals with the procedure for selection of pensioners, which provides that the matter shall be placed before the Selection Committee and the said Committee shall be the final authority so far as the selection of pensioners is concerned. So far as the eligibility to get pension is concerned, the letter of the Culture Department also does not indicate that it considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the afore¬said Rules. That apart, Annexure-15, in my view, was the outcome of total non-application of mind and cannot be said to be a speaking order. The further stand of the Government is that the decision taken by the institute would not be said to be the decision of the Government. But fact remains that the recommenda¬tion made by the H. & T.W. Department vide Annexure-9 to the Department of Culture for sanction of pension to the petitioner was not entertained by the Department of Culture and the said Department returned all the relevant papers submitted to it for according sanction of pension to the petitioner to the former department vide Annexure-10 stating that it was appropriate for the H. & T.W. Department to consider sanction of any financial assistance to the petitioner. From the facts available on record, it is crystal clear that the proposal sent by the H. & T.W. Department to the Culture Department for sanction of pension to the petitioner vide Annexure-9 was not properly considered by the latter department and the same was simply returned to the H. & T.W. Department in a mechanical manner without application of mind. Therefore, the order in Annexure-10 returning the propo¬sal by the Culture Department to the H. & T.W. Department as also the communication dated 18.7.1996 of the Welfare Department of the State Government to the petitioner (Annexure-15) declin¬ing to entertain the proposal do not stand to judicial scrutiny. 8. For the foregoing reasons, Annexures 10 and 15 are quashed. The Government in the Department of Tourism, Sports & Culture is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and in a liberal manner looking into the works done by the petitioner in the field of tribal literature, dialects and culture and keeping in view the wider meaning of the words “Art” and “Cul¬ture” as discussed above and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to cost. Petition disposed of.