JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order Dated 06.08.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 458 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has directed the present Petitioners to grant all terminal/pensionary benefits in favour of the applicant-O.P. No. 2, taking into consideration his employment in pensionable establishment from 21.05.1957 to 07.04.1971 & arrears to his legal heirs within a period of six months from the date or-its order. 2. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal in a nutshell is that he was initially appointed as Goods Clerk under the Respondents-Petitioners. He joined service on 21.05.1957 after being selected duly through R.S.C. While working as such, he remained on leave due to illness of his wife in the year 1970, who consequently died of said illness. After the death of his wife, the applicant lost mental balance because of essential hypertension & underwent mental treatment up to filing of the Original Application. The applicant while undergoing mental treatment in 1998, he could be able to recall that he worked under the Respondents-Petitioners. By that time he had already crossed the age of superannuation. However, on 20.11.1998, he submitted a representation to Respondent-Petitioner No. 3- Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur Division, Bihar praying for payment of his outstanding dues & pension as his date of birth being 30.05.1933, he was supposed to have been retired on superannuation with effect from 30.05.1991. In response to the said representation, the Respondent-Petitioner No. 3 vide Memo dated 01.12.1998 intimated the applicant to make representation to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur for verification of genuineness of his grievance & further asked the applicant to furnish copies of authority & source of his appointment along with documentary evidence in support of prolonged sickness from 1970 onwards for processing his case. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent to the applicant vide memo dated 15.03.1999 to submit his claims as per the procedure. In reply, the applicant made a representation on 24.05.1999 stating therein that he was selected through R.S.C. & joined office of the General Manager, S.E. Railway, Calcutta (Respondent-Petitioner No. 1) on 21.07.1957. The said representation was accompanied by a medical certificate in support of his sickness. Copy of the said representation was also sent to Respondent- Petitioner. In reply, the applicant made a representation on 24.05.1999 stating therein that he was selected through R.S.C. & joined office of the General Manager, S.E. Railway, Calcutta (Respondent-Petitioner No. 1) on 21.07.1957. The said representation was accompanied by a medical certificate in support of his sickness. Copy of the said representation was also sent to Respondent- Petitioner. No. 3 Thereafter, the applicant made several representations to the Respondents in response to which the Respondent-Petitioner No. 3 vide letter dated 01.11.2000 intimated the applicant that his representation dated 21.10.1998 was acknowledged & the result of said representation would be informed to him shortly. However, due to inaction on the part of the Respondents-Petitioners with regard to payment of pension & other dues the applicant made another representation to Respondent-Petitioner No. 3 who vide Memo dated 15.02.2001 intimated the applicant that his representation dated 21.10.1998 had been received on 31.10.2000 & after examination it was found that from the Provident Fund Account No. 56345 an amount of Rs. 580 had been paid to the applicant & no other benefit was admissible to him. Thereafter, on 26.02.2001 the applicant made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Railways enclosing all the relevant documents praying for payment of pension & other dues. The Respondent-Petitioner No. 3, vide Memo dated 04.04.2001 again intimated the applicant that his pension & other claims were being given due attention & the decision taken thereon would be informed shortly. Since nothing was paid to the applicant thereafter, the applicant flied the Original Application before the Tribunal & the Tribunal granted the aforesaid relief. 3. Mr. Bijoy Pal, Learned Counsel appearing for Railways vehemently argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. The O.P.No.2 is not entitled to pensionary benefits/ allowances as he resigned from service. The provisions prescribed in paragraph 426(1)(i) of Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 would apply to the case of the O.P. No. 2, wherein it is specifically mentioned that resignation from service entails forfeiture of past qualifying service. Paragraph 311 of the aforesaid Rules provides that no pensionary benefit is granted to Railway servant who resigns from service. The decision on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal is hot applicable to the facts of the case as it deals with Central Civil Services & not to the case of a railway employee. Paragraph 311 of the aforesaid Rules provides that no pensionary benefit is granted to Railway servant who resigns from service. The decision on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal is hot applicable to the facts of the case as it deals with Central Civil Services & not to the case of a railway employee. The representation claiming settlement of dues made by the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 on 20.11.1998 was barred by limitation. In support of his argument on the point of limitation, Mr. Pal relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Another, . 4. Mr. R.K. Rath, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite patties supported the impugned order. He contended that non-payment of pensionary benefits being a continuous wrong, the claim made by the Opp. Party No. 2 cannot be hit by the law of limitation, Further, the conduct of the Petitioners-railway authorities shows that they, never disputed the claim of the Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground of delay. Relying on the averments made in paragraph 4.11 of the Original Application Mr. Rath contended that Petitioner No,3 who was Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal vide memo dated 04.04.2001 intimated O.P. No. 2 that his pension & settlement of other dues were being given due attention details of which would be informed shortly. It was further contended that payment of pension is not a bounty but a deferred salary. It is correlated & has a nexus with the salary payable to the employee as on the date of retirement. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others. Mr. Rath, further stated that O.P. No. 2 had not submitted resignation as stated by the Petitioners who failed to produce any evidence to support their stand. 5. On the rival pleadings, the questions that fail for consideration by this Court are as follows: (1) Whether the claim of O.P. No. 2, who made a representation for the first time on 20.11.98 to Respondent No. 3 for payment of pension & other' allowance, is not barred by limitation? (II) Whether O.P. No. 2 had resigned from his post for which he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits and/or allowance? 6. (II) Whether O.P. No. 2 had resigned from his post for which he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits and/or allowance? 6. The first question relates to the point of limitation. It is not in dispute that O.P. No. 2 joined the service as a Goods Clerk on 21.05:1957 after being selected duly through R.S.C., & his retirement was supposed to be due on 30.05.1991. He made a representation on 20.11.1998 for the first time to Respondent-Petitioner No. 3 for payment of pension & other allowances. According to O.P. No. 2, while so working as Goods Clerk, he remained on leave on the ground of illness of his wife in the year 1970 & the wife consequently died of such illness. After death of his wife, he lost mental balance because of essential hypertension & underwent mental treatment, While undergoing mental treatment only in the year 1998, he could recall that he worked under the Petitioners. By that time, he had crossed the age of superannuation. After the death of his wife, he did not resume his duties. It was only in the year 1998, he recalled the above fact & submitted a representation on 20.11.1998 to Respondent-Petitioner No. 3 praying for payment of pension & other outstanding dues. Further, the Petitioner's representation dated 24.05.1999 was accompanied by a medical certificate in support of his mental illness. In the present case, the claim of Opp. Party No. 2 mainly relates to.payment of pension & arrear dues. In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 , the Apex Court placing reliance on its earlier decisions in Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Others Vs. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan and Others, ; M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, ; Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others held as under: "To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay & laches (where remedy is sought by filing a Writ Petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said "rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. One of the exceptions to the said "rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a "service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of, injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, & if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale & doctrine of. laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition." 7. Apart from the above, the conduct of the Respondents- Petitioners shows that they never intended to reject the claim of the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground of limitation. In paragraph-4.11 of the Original Application (Annexure-1) it is stated that Petitioner No. 3 who was the Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal vide memo dated 4.4.2001 (Annexure-7 to the O.A.) intimated the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 that his pension & other settlement dues were being given due attention & the decision taken thereon would be informed shortly. This averment of the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 has not been denied by the Respondents-Petitioners in their counter filed to the original application before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Railways did not point out from the record showing the intention of the Respondents-Petitioners to reject the claim of the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 for payment of pension & other allowances on the ground of limitation. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the-Apex Court in Sualal Yadav Vs. Learned Counsel for the Railways did not point out from the record showing the intention of the Respondents-Petitioners to reject the claim of the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 for payment of pension & other allowances on the ground of limitation. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the-Apex Court in Sualal Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others wherein the Appellant was a Sub- Inspector of Police. He was dismissed from service by an order of the Inspector of General of Police after holding a departmental enquiry on or about 13.7.1964 in which he did not participate. Challenging such dismissal, the Appellant appealed to the appropriate authority on 12.10.1964 & the same was dismissed on 25.6.1966. After that, the Appellant made a review application under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 1.6.1968. The said review application was entertained by the Governor, who passed an order holding that the matter was not fit for review. Thereafter, within about two or three months, a writ application was filed before the High Court which was dismissed. Against the order of High Court, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court found that the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that the review application was made to the Governor after a lapse of about two years, which was a unreasonable delay. The Apex Court held that the High Court's approach in this matter was not correct. The Governor had not dismissed the review application on the ground of delay. The review application was entertained, but it was ultimately held that it was not a fit case for review. The Governor dismissed the review application on merits. Therefore, it was not open to the High Court to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of delay in filing the review application. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the claim of Opp. Party No. 2, who made a representation for the first time on 20.11.1998 to Respondent No. 3 for payment of pension & other allowance, is not barred by limitation. The Judgment of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran (supra) relied on by Mr. Pal has no application to the present case. That Judgment was delivered in connection with an arbitration dispute. The Judgment of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran (supra) relied on by Mr. Pal has no application to the present case. That Judgment was delivered in connection with an arbitration dispute. Considering the question whether an appeal can be filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948, the Apex Court held that law of limitation may harshly affect a. particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes & the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 8. The second question relates to entitlement of Opp. Party No. 2 to pensionary benefits & allowances. It is the case of the Petitioners that Opp. Party No. 2 resigned from service on 7.4.1971 &, therefore, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefit or allowances. In support of his submission Mr. Pal relied on paragraph-311 & paragraph-426(1)(i) of the Manual of the Railway Pension Rules, 1950, which are quoted below: 311. Resignation from service:- No pensionary benefit (or compassionate grant(s) and/or allowances) may be granted to a Railway servant, who resigns from service. 426(1)(i). Resignation from service or dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from it, also entails forfeiture of past qualifying service. Thus, the main plank of argument of Mr. Pal is that since Opp. Party No. 2 resigned from service, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefit & allowances. Unfortunately, Mr. Pal failed to bring any material either to the notice of the Tribunal or this Court that the Opp. Party No. 2 tendered his resignation from his service on 7.4.1971. Mr. Pal explained that since Opp. Party No. 2 has resigned thirty years back, no service record except PPF Ledger was traced out. In absence of any evidence to show that Opp. Party No. 2 had in fact tendered his resignation on 07.04.1971, the provisions contained in paragraphs 311 & 426(1)(i) of the Manual of Pension Rules, 1950 have no application to the case of the Opp. Party No. 2. 9. However, the Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim of pensionary benefit & other allowances to the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 holding that even if the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 resigned from the service after serving about 13 years, his resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement. Party No. 2. 9. However, the Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim of pensionary benefit & other allowances to the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 holding that even if the applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 resigned from the service after serving about 13 years, his resignation should be treated as voluntary retirement. While coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 623 of 1991 (A.P. Sukla v. Union of India and Ors.) decided on 13.10.1995 & in Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in Smt. Bimla Devi v. Union of India and Ors. 1992 [2] SLJ 310, & decision of the Apex Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . 10. The Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Others held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will & pleasure of the Government & the right of a Government servant is to receive it; it is property under Article 31(1) & the State cannot withhold the same by a mere executive order. The claim to pension is also property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution & was not saved by clause (v) thereof. In D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Apex Court held as under: The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right therefore no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 1971 SCR 634 : AIR 1971 SC 1469 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that provision is a right & the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules & a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service & other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any order but by virtue of the rules. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya (supra), the Apex Court held . that pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is co-related & has a nexus with the salary payable to the employee as on the date of retirement. In State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair the Apex Court held that pension & gratuity are no, longer a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights & property in their hands & any culpable delay in settlement & disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order Dated 06.08.2003 passed by the Tribunal directing the Respondents-Petitioners to grant all terminal/pensionary benefits in favour of applicant-Opp. Party No. 2 or his legal heirs. We, therefore, direct the Petitioners to grant all the terminal/pensionary benefits to Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of four months hence. 12. The Writ Petition fails & is dismissed as such. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed