Ranjan Gogoi, J:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 259/95 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Association. 2. The case has a chequered history which will be required to be noticed for the purpose of an effective adjudication of the issues arising in the present appeal: By notification dated 8.8.1978 the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 was adopted by the Government of Tripura subject to certain modifications specifically indicated in the notification dated 8.8.1978. The modification relevant to the present adjudication is in respect of the expressions 'Central Government', 'Central Service', 'Ministry of Finance' and 'Government of India' appearing in the Pension Rules of 1972 which expressions were substituted by the adoption notification to mean 'State Government', 'State Rules', 'Finance Department' and 'Government of Tripura' respectively. The 3rd Tripura Pay Commission in its report submitted to the Government in February 1988 recommended payment of dearness allowance to the serving employees of the State Government at the same rate and intervals as made by the Central Government. The said recommendations of the Pay Commission were accepted by the State Government by Memorandum dated 18.7.1988. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that dearness allowance payable to the serving employees was being paid at the same rate as dearness relief to the pensioners of the State. Thereafter, by notification dated 22.1.1991 the Pension Rules of 1972 were amended by incorporation of rule 55(A) which is to the following effect :- "Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time." The aforesaid rule 55(A) were adopted by the State of Tripura as a part of its Pension Rules by notification dated 2.7.1992. 3. Claiming and contending that even after introduction/adoption of rule 55(A) in the Pension Rules as applicable to the State of Tripura, dearness relief was not being provided at the same rate and at the same intervals as in the case of Central Government employees, the respondent association, as the writ petitioner, instituted a proceeding before this court seeking appropriate directions in the matter. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 259/95. 4. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 259/95. 4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent-Association contended that though under rule 55(A) of the Pension Rules applicable in the State of Tripura the rates and conditions subject to which dearness relief is to be granted are to be specified from time to time by the Government of Tripura, yet there is an obligation in law on the part of the State of Tripura to grant dearness relief at the same rate at which such relief is being paid to the Central Government pensioners. The aforesaid formulation of the respondent-Association was on the ground that the dearness relief was only a mode of compensating the pensioners for the rise in the cost of living based on the consumer price index and as the rate of clearness relief granted by the Central Government has a direct nexus with the price index, such relief at any other rate will be an arbitrary action. Additionally, it was contended by the respondent-Association that as the' State of Tripura had accepted the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission for grant of dearness allowance to the serving employees at the rate granted by the Central Government, denial of the same to the pensioners by way of dearness relief will not be justified. The respondent-Association, on the basis of the materials brought on record of the writ petition, also contended that the rate of dearness relief allowed by the State Government, as on 1.4.1995, was 42% behind the rate allowed by the Central Government on the same date, though in the information submitted to the 10th Finance Commission it was stated that "the dearness allowance formula in the State is the same as in the case of Central Government". The last ground on which the respondent-Association sought the relief prayed for in the writ petition is that on the basis of the materials on record, it was clear and evident that projections had been made before the 10th Finance Commission, with regard to the requirement of funds for payment of pensionary benefits yet, on the funds being allocated on such projections, the same had been diverted for other purposes. 5. 5. The State respondents, as would be evident from the affidavit filed in Civil Rule No. 259/95, did not contest the claim of the respondent Association that they are entitled to dearness relief at the same rate and periodicity at which dearness relief was being allowed by the Central Government to its pensioners. Rather, the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the State was that the State had already taken a decision that "pensioners as well as family pensioners would get monetary benefits as per the Central Government rate". What was, however, pleaded by the State respondents in the affidavit filed in Civil Rule No. 259/95 was that the State Government on account of financial constraints has not been able to cope up with the frequency at which the Central Government was allowing dearness relief to its pensioners. The affidavit filed by the respondent-State in the aforesaid writ proceeding contained voluminous details of the precise financial position of the State at that point of time. On such basis, it was contended that the State of Tripura is able to generate only about 9% of the total annual budget outlay from its own resources and for the rest the State is dependent on allocation of Central funds made by the Finance Commission. In the affidavit filed, the details of the actual requirement of funds under different heads and the estimates approved by the 10th Finance Commission as well as by the Planning Commission for the year 1995-96 had been stated. The disparity between requirement and availability, according to the State, continued for the entire period covered by the 10th Finance Commission compelling the State Government to divert a part of the Central Government Plan Assistance for non-plan expenditure besides resorting to borrowings at heavy rates of interest. In such a situation the State, in the affidavit filed, had stated that despite all intentions and desire the State Government has not been able to pay to its pensioners dearness relief at the same rate and at the same intervals as in the case of Central Government pensioners. 6. Civil Rule No. 295/95 was allowed by the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997. 6. Civil Rule No. 295/95 was allowed by the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997. While answering the issues arising in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 22.4.1997 identified the core issue in the case to be the claimed inability of the State Government to pay dearness relief to its pensioners at the same rate and intervals as in the case of Central Government pensioners on account of financial constraints. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed filing of additional affidavits by the competent authorities of the State to explain receipt of funds on account of pension and the extent of actual disbursement of such funds. On elaborate consideration of the said additional materials that were brought on record in respect of the question noticed above, the learned Single Judge took the view that the State Government had received the amount projected by the State Government to be necessary for payment of dues to the pensioners as per Central rate but had defaulted in making payment. Accordingly, directions were issued by the learned Single Judge in para 26 of the judgment that dearness relief will be paid to the State Government pensioners at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners Specifically in paragraph 28 of the judgment, directions were issued to update the rate of dearness relief as on 1.4.1995 in two installments to meet the shortfall in the rate that had occurred. 7. What will be specifically required to be noticed at this stage, as the said fact would have relevance in the discussions that will follow, is that the findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the State Government had received the amount for payment of dearness relief to its pensioners at the rate prescribed by the Central Government appears to have been arrived at on the basis of the estimates made by the 10th Finance Commission under the head 'Pension' for the financial year 1995-96. It would also be necessary to take note of the fact that the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997 did not enter into any discussion and record any finding with regard to the stand taken by the State Government in the affidavit filed that the ground realities had been compelling the State to divert the Central plan assistance to meet non-plan expenditure under different heads besides resorting to borrowing at heavy rate of interest. 8. Against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 295/95 the State of Tripura filed the instant appeal on 23rd June, 1997. The appeal was posted for consideration on 24.6.1997 and 25.6.1997. At the hearing, the learned Advocate general appearing for the Appellant State of Tripura confined his argument to the directions of the learned Single Judge contained in para 28 of the judgment. It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that on account of financial difficulties, it was not possible to complete the required action within the time stipulated by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, suitable extension of time may be granted for compliance. The Bench hearing the appeal took note of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Advocate General and re-scheduled the date of payment of 20% of the unpaid dearness relief to not later than 21.10.1997 and the remaining 22% to not later than 31.12.1998. The appeal was, accordingly, closed by order dated 25.6.1997. 9. After the aforesaid order was rendered in the present writ appeal, by a Memorandum dated 11.2.1998 dearness relief at the rate of 125% with effect from 1.4.1995 up to 27.2.1997 was allowed by the State of Tripura. The said relief was allowed up to 27.2.1997 as after the said date the State Government had already sanctioned and released dearness relief at 125% of the pension, family pension. The aforesaid Memorandum was stated to have been issued in compliance with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.1997 and the appellate Bench on 25.6.1997 in the present writ appeal. 10. The aforesaid Memorandum was stated to have been issued in compliance with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.1997 and the appellate Bench on 25.6.1997 in the present writ appeal. 10. Thereafter, by a notification dated 27.10.1998, it was clarified that the State Government's notification dated 2.7.1992 adopting the Central Government's notification dated 22.1.1991 introducing rule 55(A) to the Pension Rules of 1972 shall be deemed to have been adopted by the State Government with the modification that in rule 55(A) in place of the expression 'Central Government' the expression State Government' is substituted. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 27.10.1998, one Malin Kanta Paul instituted a writ proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 62/2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to act in compliance with the order dated 22.4.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 259/95. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 9.8.2002, where after, the matter was carried in appeal, i.e., Writ Appeal No. 128/02. Writ Appeal No. 128/02 was finally disposed of on 21.5.2004 by reversing the order of dismissal of the writ petition and by directing the State-respondents to implement the directions of the court dated 22.4.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 259/95 which was affirmed by the order dated 25.6.1997 passed in the present writ appeal. The special leave petition filed before the hon'ble Supreme Court seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 22.4.1997 passed in W.A. No. 128/07 has since been dismissed. 12. A reading of the very elaborate judgment dated 21.5.2004 passed in Writ Appeal No. 128/02 would go to show that after due consideration, the Bench hearing the writ appeal thought it appropriate to take the view that the notification dated 27.10.1998 did not bring about any effective change in the situation in which directions akin to a continuing mandamus was issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 26 of the judgment dated 22.4.1997 rendered in Civil Rule No. 295/95. The above view was taken by the Bench upon notice of the fact that in Civil Rule No. 295/95 it was the specific pleaded case of the respondent Association that the rate of dearness relief and the conditions subject to which the same is to be granted was required to be specified/determined by the State Government, the very position which was sought to be brought in by means of the notification dated 27.10.1998. The Bench, however, took note of the specific grounds on which the dearness relief at the Central rate was claimed by the respondent Association in Civil Rule No. 295/95 while conceding the power to fix the rate(s) to the State Government. The said grounds have already been recorded in para 4 of the present order. The stand of the State respondents in Civil Rule No. 295/95 virtually accepting the contentions advanced by the respondent-Association in the said writ petition but pleading the ground of financial constraints for the inability of the State to pay dearness relief at the Central rate, the details of which have already been noticed in the present order, was also taken note of by the Bench hearing Writ Appeal No. 128/02. On the said facts, the Bench took the view that as the assumption of power by the State by means of the Notification dated 27.10.1998 to decide the rate at which and the conditions subject to which dearness relief will be paid never being in doubt or dispute and, in fact, being virtually admitted by the respondent-Association in Civil Rule No. 295/95, the notification dated 27.10.1998 did not bring about any fundamental change to justify the refusal on the part of the State Government to implement the continuing mandamus issued by this court on 25.6.1997. Relying, inter alia, on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Pathak & Another v. Union of India & Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 50 , a conclusion was reached by the Bench hearing Writ Appeal No. 128/02 that unless the foundation or the basis for issuance of the writ of mandamus in Civil Rule No. 259/95 stands altered, the mandamus issued by the court cannot be refused to be implemented by the State. It was also observed by the Bench hearing Writ Appeal No. 128/02 that as long as the order dated 22.4.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 259/95 and affirmed by the appellate Bench remains on record and there is no change in the foundational facts leading to the aforesaid writ of mandamus, the obligation of the State to pay dearness relief at the Central rate will continue. In this regard, it was also observed by the Bench that if the State actually does not have the fund to pay the dearness relief at the Central rate, the mandamus issued will automatically become in executable. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions reached and the findings recorded, Writ Appeal No. 128/02 was accordingly disposed of. 13. After the judgment dated 21.5.2004 in Writ Appeal No. 128/02 was rendered, the State of Tripura filed a review petition, i.e., Review Petition No. 17/06 [Review Petition No. 12/04 (Agartala)] seeking review of the order dated 25.6.1997 passed in the present Writ Appeal. By order dated 23.3.2006, the said Review Petition was allowed; the order dated 25.6.1997 passed in the Writ Appeal was set aside and the present writ appeal, i.e., W.A. No. 330/97 was ordered to be heard afresh. This is how the matter is again before us. 14. The State of Tripura has filed an amendment application seeking certain amendments in the present Appeal which have been allowed by the court by order dated 6.9.2007 passed in C.M. Application No. 104/2007. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State enclosing several documents, the details of which will be noticed later. The respondent-Association has filed its rejoinder to the said additional affidavit also enclosing certain other documents. 15. We have heard Sri T. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants State and Sri D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 16. On behalf of the appellants it has been urged that the Adoption of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the State of Tripura by its notification dated 8.7.1978 was an adoption with modifications, details of which have been set out in the adoption notification dated 8.7.1978. Referring to the table appended to the said notification Sri Roy has argued that the expressions 'Central Government' and 'Govt. of India' appearing in the Pension Rules of 1972 stood substituted by the expressions 'State Government' and 'Govt. Referring to the table appended to the said notification Sri Roy has argued that the expressions 'Central Government' and 'Govt. of India' appearing in the Pension Rules of 1972 stood substituted by the expressions 'State Government' and 'Govt. of Tripura' respectively. Rule 55A was incorporated in the Pension Rules of 1972 by Govt. of India notification dated 22.1.1991. The same was adopted for the State of Tripura by the State Government's notification dated 2.7.1992. According to Sri Roy, the aforesaid adoption of Rule 55(A) was subject to the modifications already spelt out in the earlier notification dated 8.7.1978 by which the Pension Rules of 1972 was adopted by the State of Tripura. Dearness relief to pensioners in the State of Tripura, therefore, has to be paid at such rates and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the State Government. It is, therefore, not obligatory on the part of the State Government to enhance the rates of dearness relief to the same levels (rates) and at the same intervals as in the case of Central Government pensioners. Sri Roy has further argued that what was conceded in the State's affidavit in Civil Rule No. 259 of 1995 was the wish and desire of the State Government to grant dearness relief at the same rate and at the same intervals as in the case of the Central Govt. pensioners subject to the availability of funds at the disposal of the State Government. Unless funds are available, notwithstanding the desire of the State Government, increase of the rates of dearness relief and the periodicity of such increase cannot be at par with the similar exercise made by the Central Government, from time to time, in case of Central Govt. pensioners. Sri Roy has further submitted that elaborate materials were laid before the learned Single Judge deciding Civil Rule No. 259/95 to show that during the relevant years under consideration there was a shortfall in Central assistance vis-a-vis the actual needs of the State. None of the said materials were considered in the proper perspective by the learned Single Judge who merely relied on the total quantum of Central relief estimated under the pension head and the amount disbursed under the said head to come to the conclusion that there was a surplus amount available for disbursement against pension. None of the said materials were considered in the proper perspective by the learned Single Judge who merely relied on the total quantum of Central relief estimated under the pension head and the amount disbursed under the said head to come to the conclusion that there was a surplus amount available for disbursement against pension. Sri Roy has further submitted that in any case the Findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were in the context of the position existing in the year 1995-96. The claims made in the writ petition and the facts placed before the court being confined to the said year, i.e., 1995-96 there is no basis for the continuing mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge as contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment and Order dated 22.4.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 259/95. 17. Sri Roy, learned counsel for the appellants has further placed before the court the averments made in the writ appeal as well as the facts stated in the supplementary affidavit to satisfy the court that the gap between estimates of allocation and expenditure under the Head of Pension had kept on steadily increasing during the tenure of the 10th Finance Commission, i.e., 1995-2000 as well as in respect of the period of the 11th Finance Commission, i.e., 2000-2005. In this regard, Sri Roy has placed before the court the relevant amendments carried out in the writ appeal as well as the statements made in the additional affidavit dated 13.2.2008 to show that during the period of the 10th Finance Commission (1995-2000) against the State's estimated expenditure of Rs. 285.37 crores towards pension including dearness relief the Finance Commission had estimated an expenditure of Rs. 229.76 crore. As against the said estimates the State Government had actually incurred an expenditure of Rs. 318.97 crores. Similarly, during the period of the 11th Finance Commission (2000-2005) against an estimated expenditure of Rs. 431.50 crores made by the State, the Finance Commission made an estimate of Rs. 405.96 crores whereas the State Government had to actually incur an expenditure of Rs. 751.42 crores. On the aforesaid basis, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the continuing nature of the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 22.4.1997 is not legally tenable in view of the subsequent facts that have taken place. 751.42 crores. On the aforesaid basis, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the continuing nature of the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 22.4.1997 is not legally tenable in view of the subsequent facts that have taken place. It is, therefore, argued that having regard to the said subsequent facts the directions contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be set aside. 18. Controverting the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant Sri Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for payment of dearness relief at the same rate and intervals as in the case of the Central Govt. pensioners was issued by the court on the basis of a virtual concession made by the State in Civil Rule No. 259/95. Sri Biswas has submitted that in its affidavit filed in the case the State had clearly and categorically stated that the State of Tripura had already taken a decision to grant dearness relief at the same rate and intervals as in the case of Central Govt. employees. The only reason why payment at the Central rate was not forthcoming is the financial constraints claimed by the State. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed filing of specific affidavit on the point at issue, i.e., the amount actually allocated to the State on account of pension and the amount disbursed. Having found that there was a surplus of funds under the Head of Pension, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to take the view that the pensioners should be paid the enhanced rate of dearness relief as allowed by the Central Government to its pensioners on 1.4.1995, The shortfall of 42% between the Central and the State Government's rates of dearness relief, as on the said date, was, accordingly, directed to be made up by actual payments in installments. On the said basis the learned Single Judge further directed that the respondent-State will pay dearness relief to its pensioners at the same rate applicable to Central Govt. pensioners. On the said basis the learned Single Judge further directed that the respondent-State will pay dearness relief to its pensioners at the same rate applicable to Central Govt. pensioners. Sri Biswas has submitted that in the first stage of the appeal proceedings taken out against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge there was no challenge to the merits of the decision and the only prayer before the Appellate Bench was for extension of time for implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge, which extension was accordingly granted. Thereafter, the State Government's notification dated 27.10.1998 was issued seeking to clarify that the rate of clearness relief payable under rule 55A of the Pension Rules of 1972 is required to be determined by the State Government, The court proceedings that had erupted over the said issue stood terminated by the order of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2004 passed in Writ Appeal No. 128 of 2002. In the said order the Division Bench took the view that the continuing mandamus issued by the court cannot be ignored unless there is a change in the foundational facts leading to the mandamus issued. The aforesaid question, i.e., whether there is any change in the foundational facts is the core question in the appeal. In this regard, Sri Biswas has placed before the court the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Association on 24.1.2008 to point out that the estimates under the Head of Pension as made by the 12th Finance Commission for the period 2005-2010 stands at a total Rs. 1947.53 crores. Against the specific estimates for the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 made by the Finance Commission, the annual budgetary provisions in the State of Tripura for the said years show a surplus of Rs. 77.38 crores, 83.54 crores and Rs. 85.99 crores respectively against the major Head-2001 Pension and Other Retirement Benefits. Sri Biswas, therefore, has argued that there is no change in the foundational facts in which the continuing mandamus was issued by the court on 22.4.1997 so as to justify any interference with the directions contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.1997. 19. Sri Biswas, therefore, has argued that there is no change in the foundational facts in which the continuing mandamus was issued by the court on 22.4.1997 so as to justify any interference with the directions contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.1997. 19. The arguments of the rival parties and the chronology of events that have taken place leading to the re-hearing of the present appeal by us makes it abundantly clear that the only point at issue that will require our consideration is whether there has been any change in the basic facts on consideration of which the continuing mandamus was granted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 26 of the judgment dated 22.4.1997. In this regard, what will be required to be determined by us is whether funds have been received by the State of Tripura for payment of pension and dearness relief to its pensioners under the grants approved by the Finance Commissions constituted from time to time and whether if such funds have been received the State is obliged in law to release dearness relief at the same rate and at the same frequency as in the case of Central Government pensioners. 20. To answer the aforesaid question, the court has to necessarily take into account facts and events subsequent in point of time to those considered by the learned Single Judge as such consideration of the learned Single Judge was confined to the year 1995-96 and the projections made by the 10th Finance Commission. Naturally, as the continuing mandamus granted was intended to have effect in the future, the events in this regard that had taken place subsequent to the order of the learned Single Judge will have to have our consideration, notwithstanding, the arguments made to the contrary on behalf of the respondents. The financial projections of the State be it in the form of the claims made before the Finance Commission constituted under article 280 of the Constitution of India or the Planning Commission or the estimates made by such bodies are mere projections based on estimates and expectations. Request for funds are made on the basis of such estimates and allocations also proceed on estimations. Budget proposals of a State are based on similar expectations. Request for funds are made on the basis of such estimates and allocations also proceed on estimations. Budget proposals of a State are based on similar expectations. Such projections, estimates and expectations often get disturbed and disrupted in the course of the day-to-day working of the Government. The running of a Government, particularly in the context of a huge population like ours, may not take into account very many imponderable factors which in course of time become inevitable and, therefore, impossible to avoid. Specifically, in the context of Government spending out of earmarked and sanctioned funds under different Heads, it must be acknowledged that keeping in view the frequent change of priority areas that a Government may be called upon to make from time to time diversion or utilization of funds earmarked under one Head to another is not an unknown feature of the Governmental process. Such a feature cannot be termed as financial in discipline. Rather, it is a necessary adjunct of the process of administration and change of policy and priority areas depending of the needs of the situation. The Government must be left free to administer, as it thinks fit subject to the paramount requirement that such administration must conform to laws. Viewed in the above context, the funds estimated either by the Finance Commissions or by the Planning Commissions, from time to time, though may be made under different Heads, must be understood to be funds included in one basket and its use cannot be understood to be confined to the exclusive Head for which estimates had been made. Any other view, according to us, may have the effect of scuttling the administrative process besides imposing unnecessary fetters on the exercise of administrative power. Such a view may also have the effect of crippling the administration and at times bringing the entire process to a grinding halt. In the present case, it may be correct that, though it has not been demonstrated before us to our fullest satisfaction, funds estimated and, therefore, approved by the Finance Commission from time to time under the Head of pension and the actual expenditure incurred by the State of Tripura under the same head may not have maintained arithmetical precision and accuracy and there may be/have been a surplus. But what has to be viewed is the total funds estimated as acceptable expenditure of the State by the Finance Commission and, therefore, approved as against the total outlay of expenditure as envisaged for the State. If the said figures are taken into account, it is clear and evident to us that each successive Finance Commission had estimated and approved much less than what was assessed by the State giving rise to the necessity of astute financial management by the State by re-categorizing the priority areas and by re-allocating funds in the proportion and to the extent considered necessary out of the limited resources. The need for diversion of funds from one head to another has been candidly admitted by the State in the affidavit filed in Civil Rule No. 259/95. Such a situation, as we have already held, is a reality that must be acknowledged by the courts in a situation when the margin between what is available and what is required is ever increasing. That apart, in the materials placed before the court by the State, particularly in the form of additional affidavits, it has been very clearly stated that the financial projections of the State in the form of estimated expenditure under the head of Pension during the period of 10th and 11th Finance Commissions had not only suffered a set back at the hands of the Commission but in fact there had been a higher input of Rs. 89.22 crores and 345.46 crores, respectively, during the periods in question. Similar over expenditure on other heads has resulted in acute financial constraints. It has also been stated in the additional affidavit of the State dated 13.2.2008 that there is an uncovered gap of Rs. 3376.80 crores between receipts and expenditure during the period covered by the 12th Finance Commission. It has also been placed before us that the 12th Finance Commission had recommended maintenance of high discipline by the State in financial matters. 3376.80 crores between receipts and expenditure during the period covered by the 12th Finance Commission. It has also been placed before us that the 12th Finance Commission had recommended maintenance of high discipline by the State in financial matters. That apart, the State in its additional affidavit dated 13.2.2008 has stated that it is the declared policy of the State Government to pay dearness allowance to the serving employees at the same rate as dearness relief to the pensioners and that the obligation flowing from the interim mandamus of this court, though in respect of the pensioners, cannot be ignored by the State in the case of its serving employees which in turn will have a crippling effect on the State finances. 21. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that further continuance of the mandamus granted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 26 of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997 will have the effect of being a judicial, dictation to the State to conduct its financial affairs and regulate the spending of public finances in a manner identified by the court. Such a course of action will not be correct. The direction in question, therefore, should not be allowed to continue any further. We, therefore, interfere with the directions contained in paragraph 26 of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 259/95 and, accordingly, allow this appeal.