JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner for the post of Tax Inspector treating him to be an employee under the Palika Centralised Services Rules, 1966. Further it was prayed that the respondents be directed to pay arrears of pension and other retiral dues with interest to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 06.07.1963 in the Municipal Board, Mussoorie district Dehradun on the post of peon and was confirmed on the said post on 20.09.1969. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Toll Moharrir and confirmed on the said post on 07.08.1970. Thereafter he was again promoted on the post of Toll Moharrir and confirmed on the said post in the year 1972. 4. The petitioner has submitted that he has preferred a representation on 27.09.1982 to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mussoorie and requested him to promote him on the post of Tax Inspector. In pursuance to his representation, the Commissioner Garhwal division Pauri issued a letter to the Administrator of the Municipal Board Mussoorie and directed him to take necessary steps. Accordingly, the Executive Officer Municipal Board, Mussoorie passed an order of promotion on 11.12.1984 promoting the petitioner as Tax Inspector with effect from 01.11.1984. 5. The petitioner has submitted that the post of Tax Inspector was governed by the Centralised Services Rules 1966 and he has been continuously working on the post of Tax Inspector and retired on 28.02.1999 after attaining the age of superannuation. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Municipal Board Mussoorie has sent pension papers to the Director Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow. On 18.12.1999 a letter was also sent by the Municipal Board Mussoorie for the release of the pension of the petitioner but the respondent No. 3 has paid no heed. On 02.03.2000 the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondent No.3 and he personally approached to the office of the respondent No.3 for the release of his pension. 7. On 18.12.1999 a letter was also sent by the Municipal Board Mussoorie for the release of the pension of the petitioner but the respondent No. 3 has paid no heed. On 02.03.2000 the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondent No.3 and he personally approached to the office of the respondent No.3 for the release of his pension. 7. On 6th April 2000 the respondent No.3 has informed to the respondent No.4 that the post of Tax Inspector in Municipal Boards within the state, was brought by the Govt. under the centralized services w.e.f. 03.05.1983 and the provisions of U.P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules 1966 were made applicable to the post of Tax Inspector. It was also informed that since the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Tax Inspector was wrongly made by the Commissioner w.e.f. 01.11.1984 without any authority, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be treated as employee of the Centralised Services and is not entitled for pension under the Centralised Services Rules. 8. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No.4 had promoted him to the post of Tax Inspector and as per the directions of the respondent No. 3, the respondent No.4 had sent service book of the petitioner and had sent the contribution of the petitioner towards his pension from time to time, but despite correspondence, the respondent No.3 has never send directions to the respondent No.4 for not treating the services of the petitioner under centralised services, as such, there was no justification not to treat him under centralised services after his retirement and to withhold his pension. 9. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had continuously worked on the post of Tax Inspector under the centralised services and deposited his contribution towards his pension and the respondent No.3 had been receiving the same without any objections at any point of time. 10. It has been further submitted that the rules of justice, equity, fair play and rule of estoppel cannot permit the respondents to deprive the petitioner from getting his pension. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was in legitimate expectation that on retirement he will get all benefits of service. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have withheld his pension and despite repeated requests and representations, the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner. 12. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was in legitimate expectation that on retirement he will get all benefits of service. 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have withheld his pension and despite repeated requests and representations, the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner. 12. On the other hand the respondent No.4, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that the promotion of the petitioner by the Commissioner Garhwal Division was without jurisdiction. Accordingly His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma has dismissed the W.P. No. 570 (S/S) 2001 filed by Pratap Singh Bhuriyal Vs. Municipal Board Nainital and others and observed that there is no provision in the Sub Rule 1 to 6 of the Palika Services Rules 1966 to delegate the power to the Commissioner to promote any employee of the Board who is covered by the Centralised Services Rules 1966. It was also submitted that the pension papers were forwarded to the Director Local Bodies treating the petitioner on the post of Tax Inspector, who returned the same through the letter of Finance & Accounts Officer dated 06.04.2000 with the objections that the petitioner could not have been promoted by the Commissioner in view of the U.P. Centralised Services Rule 1966, therefore, the promotion of the petitioner has been calculated in accordance with the non centralised service employees pension Rules 1984. It has been also submitted that the respondent is willing to pay the entire amount of retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner as has been directed by the Addl. Director Pauri. 13. Respondent No. 3 in his counter affidavit has stated that the post of Tax Inspector in the Municipal Boards within the State was brought under the U.P. State Municipal (Centralised) Service w.e.f. 03.05.1983 vide notification-dated 03.05.1983, therefore, the power for appointment/promotion on the said post vests with the Director Local Bodies/Secretary U.P. Sashan, hence the promotion of the petitioner on the said post by the Commissioner Pauri Garhwal or District Magistrate Pauri or Executive Officer Nagar Palika Massoorie is illegal. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Non Centralised services from the year 1984, therefore he could not be sanctioned pension under the U.P. Municipal (Centralised) Services Rules 1981. 14. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the Non Centralised services from the year 1984, therefore he could not be sanctioned pension under the U.P. Municipal (Centralised) Services Rules 1981. 14. It may be pointed out that the petitioner has made applications in the year 1981-82 to the Municipal Board for considering him for promotion to the vacant post of Tax Inspector. One such application was moved on 29th September 1982 by the petitioner before the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mussoorie and copy of which also sent to the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri and to the District Magistrate, Dehradun. 15. The Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri, on the representation of the petitioner dated 27th September 1982, by his letter dated 30th October 1984 directed the District Magistrate, Dehradun and Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mussoorie to take appropriate steps to promote the petitioner on the post of Tax Inspector, as such, the petitioner was promoted on 11th December 1984 as against the post which was vacant since the year 1978. 16. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is continuously on the post of Tax Inspector for more than 15 years and thereafter he retired on reaching the age of superannuation from the post of Tax Inspector on 28.02.1999. 17. Surprisingly the petitioner has not been paid the post retirement benefits and, as such, present writ petition has been filed. 18. Admittedly, the post of the Tax Inspector of the Municipal Board came under the centralised services w.e.f. 3rd May 1983 and the appointing authority of the post of the Tax Inspector was Director, Local Bodies, U.P., Lucknow. 19. The respondents have submitted that the appointment of the petitioner being illegal, the petitioner is not entitled for the retirement benefits on the post of Tax Inspector. Surprisingly enough, the petitioner worked in the Directorate of Local Bodies, U.P. Lucknow. The Director has permitted the petitioner to continue on the post of Tax Inspector and the steps were taken to revert the petitioner. The contribution of the petitioner was also invited for pension on the post of Tax Inspector under centralised services. The petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs. 17,.397/= towards the amount for pension was deposited as contributory amount under centralised services. 20. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court regarding the recommendations of the Commissioner. The contribution of the petitioner was also invited for pension on the post of Tax Inspector under centralised services. The petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs. 17,.397/= towards the amount for pension was deposited as contributory amount under centralised services. 20. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court regarding the recommendations of the Commissioner. These recommendations were made in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner on 27.09.1982 and the vacancy was still continuing after the retirement of Mr. Hamidul Jafar in the year 1978. 21. The Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & others v. Union of India, reported in 1983-1 5CC-305 has held that pension is neither a bounty nor a grace depending upon the sweet will and pleasure of the employer but it creates a valuable right vesting in the employee. The observations are quoted below:- “......... Viewed in the light of the present day notions pension is a term applied to periodic money payments to a person who retires at a certain age considered age of disability; payments usually continue for the rest of the natural life of the recipient. The reasons underlying the grant of pension vary from country to country and from scheme to scheme. But broadly stated they are (i) as compensation to former members of the Armed Forces or their dependents for old age disability, or death (usually from service causes), (ii) as old age retirement or disability benefits for civilian employees, and (iii) as social security payments for the aged, disabled, or deceased citizens made in accordance with the rules governing social service programmes of the country. Pensions under the first head arte of great antiquity. Under the second head they have been in force in one form or another in some countries for over a century but those coming under the third head are relatively of recent origin, through they are of the greatest magnitude. There are other views about pensions such as charity, paternalism, deferred pay rewards for service rendered, or as a means of promoting general welfare (see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 17, p. 575). But these views have become otiose. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. 17, p. 575). But these views have become otiose. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from underserved want. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socia-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison detre for pension is inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American Jurisprudence, 2d, 881)." 22. As held by the Allahabad High Court (F.B.) 1998 (3) Education & Service Cases 1725; it is settled law that action of the Court shall prejudice no man under the legal maxim known "actus curiae neminem gravabit". The observations are quoted below :- " .... As held by the Allahabad High Court (F.B.) 1998 (3) Education & Service Cases 1725; it is settled law that action of the Court shall prejudice no man under the legal maxim known "actus curiae neminem gravabit". The observations are quoted below :- " .... The fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 16(1) of the Constitution cannot be denied to them more so, when the actual number of vacancies could be made known only to the Selection Committee and the petitioners were not admittedly responsible, in any manner whatsoever, in this regard. We must rely on the principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" meaning that an act of the Court shall prejudice no one. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit an act of the Court shall prejudice no one, stands recognised by seven Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and another, (A.I.R. 1988 SC 1531). In paragraph 83 of the majority judgment (rendered by Sabyasachi Mukharji, G.L. Oza and S. Natrajan, JJ.) it has been laid down that "This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law." Ranganath Misra, J., who agreed with the majority judgment, also observed in paragraph 100 that it is a well settled position in law that an act of the Court should not injure any of the suitors, remembering the Privy Council decision in Alexander Rodger v. The Comptori D' Escompte De Paris, (1871) 3 PC 65 that whenever the expression "act of the Court" is used, it means act of the Court as a whole. B. C. Ray, J., who too agreed with the judgments of Sabyasachi Mukharji and Ranganath Misra, JJ., also stated similarly in paragraph 114 of the judgment. Even M.N. Venkatachaliah, J., who dissented with the majority, had stated that "the best illustration of the operation of the maxim is provided by the application of the rule of nune protunc. For instance, if owing to the delay in what the Court should, otherwise, have done earlier but did later, a party suffers owing to events occurring in the interregnum, the Court has the power to remedy it, and that the operation of the maxim is, generally, procedural" (vide paragraph 139 of the judgment). For instance, if owing to the delay in what the Court should, otherwise, have done earlier but did later, a party suffers owing to events occurring in the interregnum, the Court has the power to remedy it, and that the operation of the maxim is, generally, procedural" (vide paragraph 139 of the judgment). The aforesaid maxim which stands approved by the Apex Court has to be applied in its true spirit. Apparently, the mistake was of the office in not working out the correct number of vacancies for the direct recruits. " 23. In Narendra Chadha & others vs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1986 SC 638, the Apex Court has held as under :- “...... If a person is promoted to any post even in violation of any statutory provision or rule and such a person is permitted to work for i considerable period of 15 to 20 years, such person cannot be reverted or the ground of his appointment being illegal and not in accordance with law.” 24. Further in Yashwant Han Katakkar v. Union of India and others, reported in 1996 SCC (Labour & Services) page- 464, the Apex Court has held as under:- "It is contended that since the total service of the appellant was in quasi-permanent capacity he was not entitled to the pensionary benefit. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellant was not made permanent even when he had served the Govt. for 18'12 years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Government. The appellant having served the Government for almost two decades it would be unfair to treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. " 25. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. " 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that since it is a case where the vacancy had occurred prior to the enforcement of Centralised Services Rules and, as such, the case of the petitioner is fully governed by the Rules and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to fill-up the vacancy of the year 1978, in view of the Apex Court's decision in B.L. Gupta v. M.C.O., reported in J.T. 1998 (I) S.C., page 225 The observations are as under ;_ "When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 S.C.C. 157: t990 S.C.C. (L & S) 446: (1990) 14 ATC 688. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah V. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284: 1983 SCC (L&5) 382, P. Ganeshwar Rao V. State of A.P. (1998 supp SCC 740: 1989 SCC (L&S) 123 : (1988) 8 ATC 957 and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education (1983) 3 SCC 33: 1983 SCC (L&S) 356, it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. " 26. In para 11 & 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed the following:- " .... It is made clear that the vacancies which had arisen prior to amendment of the Rules in 1995 can only be filled in accordance with the 1978 Rules. " 27. In Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey, Dr. Abha Malhotra, Dr. " 26. In para 11 & 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed the following:- " .... It is made clear that the vacancies which had arisen prior to amendment of the Rules in 1995 can only be filled in accordance with the 1978 Rules. " 27. In Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey, Dr. Abha Malhotra, Dr. S.C. Bhadwal & ors. v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & ors. reported in JT 1998 vol. (1), page 470, the Apex Court has held as under:- "29. In Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (JT 1990 (2) SC 178=1990 (3) SCC 48) it was a case where appointment of the principal was held to be illegal but since she was working in the college for 16 years it was felt to be unjust to make her leave the post. Hence in spite of that she was permitted to continue. " 28. In A.J. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 (7) Services Law Reporter page-8, the Punjab And Haryana High Court (F.B.) has held as under:- " .... It is by now well settled by a catena of judgments of the Court that pension payable to a retired government servant is no longer a bounty which is payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the government. It has been held to be a valuable right which flows to such an employee by virtue of the rules which governed him employment. Reference in this regard be made to Deokinandan Prasad V. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409; [1971 (1) SLR 175 (SC)] wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court expressed this view. The learned Judges after referring to the material provisions in the pension rules further held that the grant of pension did not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of qualifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may become necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the government servant not because of the said order but by virtue of the rules which have statutory force. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1976 SC 667 :[1976(1) SLR 525 (SC)] and State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356; [ 1985 (1) SLR 750 (SC)] the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view and it will be of interest to quote the following observations from this judgment :- 'Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.' ..... A learned Judge of this Court in Maha Singh Sinhar v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) RSJ 643: [1994 (5) SLR 466 (Pb. & Hry.) relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, 1991 (1) RSJ 152 [1990(5) SLR 311 (SC)] and D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Limited [1993(3) RSJ 696 (4) SLR 126 (SC)] has held that the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is wide enough not only to include the right of employment as part of right to life but also the incidental right to pension. " 29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner cannot be at fault as he has applied for the post of Tax Inspector by way of representation dated 27.09.1982, the same was acted upon and ultimately continued for more than 15 years. Further, under the legitimate expectation, the petitioner contributed towards the amount of pension and cannot be deprived after his retirement. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the retirement benefits in favor of the petitioner of the post of Tax Inspector alongwith 6% simple interest per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order.