Judgment :- 1. The State of Karnataka has preferred these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, holding that persons who served the State as Shanbhogues and thereafter who served the State as deemed Village Accountants are not only entitled to benefit of pension but also entitled to the benefit of Rule 247-A of the KCS Rules. 2. The facts leading to this proceedings are as under: The respondents in these Writ Petitions were all Shanbhogues, who were working as hereditary village officers under the Mysore Village Offices Act of 1908. The Karnataka legislature enacted Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961 and abolished village offices which were held hereditarily before the commencement of the Constitution of India and also the ernoluments appertaining thereto in the State of Karnataka. Thereafter, they also promulgated a set of rules called Mysore General Services (Revenue Sub-ordinate branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961. Pursuant to these Rules, certain recruitments were made and they were given training as required under the Rules. The Abolition Act also substituted a new Section for the pre-existing 14th Section of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1884. 1st of February 1963 was fixed as the date for the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The constitutional validity of the said Act was challenged before this Court and the operation of the Act was stayed. Consequently, the Act did not come into force on 01-02-1963, as earlier notified. The Writ Petitions challenging the constitutional validity were dismissed on 19th December 1963. The said judgment of this court was challenged before the Supreme Court and the enforcement of the Act was stayed in those appeals. The said appeals before the Supreme court were dismissed on 21st January 1966. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Karnataka Legislature enacted Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act’) which replaced the Land Revenue Code in Mysore and other corresponding statutes in other integrated areas. The KLR Act came into force on 1st April 1964. By virtue of Section 16(2) of the KLR Act, the Shanbogues whose hereditary office was abolished by the Act continued in office as deemed Village Accountants. The KLR Act came into force on 1st April 1964. By virtue of Section 16(2) of the KLR Act, the Shanbogues whose hereditary office was abolished by the Act continued in office as deemed Village Accountants. The said Section is a fresh arrangement substituted for the arrangement contemplated by new Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code. 3. Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules of 1961 provided that the cadre of Village Accountants shall be a district wise cadre and scale of pay to the post of Village Accountant shall be 65-1-70-2-90. The said recruitment Rules were replaced by fresh Rules in the year 1970. The new Rules did not prescribe any specific scale of pay, but provided that the scale of pay shall be such as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. There has been revision of pay scale pursuant to or in the light of the recommendations of the pay commission, as a result of which, the pay scale prescribed by Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules of 1961 was replaced with effect from 1st January 1970, by two scales of pay, one pay scale applicable to persons whose qualification is less than that of school final or S.S.L.C. Second pay scale of the higher scale for those who are S.S.L.C. In spite of the aforesaid revised pay scale coming into force, the said benefit was not extended to the respondents and persons who are similarly placed. They were only paid “potige” payable under the repealed Act of 1908. Section 4 of the Act is the principle Section which provided that, with effect on and from the appointed date, the village offices shall stand abolished and all incidents pertaining to same shall also stood extinguished. The incidents include the emoluments attached to the office. Therefore, it is clear that when the abolition of the old hereditary village offices became effective, the emoluments attached thereto also stood extinguished. Therefore, the respondents and person who were similarly placed, approached this court in a batch of writ petitions, for a direction to the Government to pay them the difference in the amount between the pay of village accountants and the remuneration drawn by them as “potige” allowance from the year 1961 till the date of payment. The said writ petitions came to be allowed on 15th March 1971. The said writ petitions came to be allowed on 15th March 1971. It was held in the said order that, so long as the Act had not come into force or so long as the old hereditary offices and the ernoluments and rights connected there with, had not been effectively abolished, the Government may claim that these respondents are entitled to be paid only the potige. However, with the dismissal of the appeal before the Apex Court, the Act became effective only on 21st January 1966. Till that date the respondents are not entitled to make an effective claim for payment of anything other than potige. For the period subsequent thereto, it was held that the posts created are stipendary posts carrying salaries according to the grades by the Rules. It is in this new post the respondents were continued. The clear legal effect of this is that they would be entitled to be paid salary on the scales prescribed under the Rules. Taking into consideration the question of limitation. It was held that each of the respondents should be placed at the bottom of the scale prescribed under Rule 2 of the Rules, 1961 on 21st January 1966 and be given increments in the scale and also the benefit or revision of pay scale in 1970 and be paid the difference between the amount so becoming payable and the potige or other emoluments actually paid to them. It was made clear that they shall not be entitled to payment of the excess amount to be calculated for any period prior to the date of three years immediately preceding the date of presentation of the writ petitions. The relevant portion of the judgment where this right was upheld by this Court in the case of SHANKARANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1571 , reads as under: “15. It is argued that even after abolition, the same posts are sought to be continued. It is no doubt true that the names of the offices have not been changed but there is a basics structural difference between the posts that have been created. The posts created by the new Act are stipendiary posts. They carry salaries according to the grades created by the rules. The incumbents are transferable and their services is pensionable. Different qualifications are prescribed for the new posts. The posts created by the new Act are stipendiary posts. They carry salaries according to the grades created by the rules. The incumbents are transferable and their services is pensionable. Different qualifications are prescribed for the new posts. From a consideration of the incidents attaching to the new posts, it is clear that the old posts have been abolished and new posts have been created and that the whole complexion of the posts has been changed.” 4. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this court in the case of E. VENKATARAMAIAH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF MYSORE held at para 19 as under: “The clear legal effect of this is that they would be entitled to be paid salary on the scales prescribed under the rules.” It is not in dispute that all those persons who were continued in the post of Village Accountant from 21.01.1966 were being paid salary according to the aforesaid scale till they were relieved from duty either on the ground of superannuation or on the ground of appointment made under Section 16(1) of the KLR Act, to the said post. 5. After such retirement of these Village Accountants, dispute arose regarding payment of pension to them. The Accountant General, Bangalore, in his letter dated 09.08.1977 sought clarification as to how the services of hereditary Shanbhogues rendered by them as deemed Village Accountants on the strength of stay orders issued by Courts, till the date of superannuation/retirement, are to be reckoned for purposes of pay, pension etc. The Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore Divisions were also pressing for issue of suitable clarifications by Government in the matter for avoiding difficulty and delay in finalising the pension claims of Ex-Shanbhogues who have been permitted to retire from service or relieved of their duties on attaining the age of superannuation. 6. It is in this background that the Government of Karnataka issued an order on 28.11.1979 regarding payment of pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who were appointed as Village Accountants, after taking note of the provisions of the Act, the judgments rendered by the Courts in this regard and after considering the letters of Accountant General and the Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore and also after careful examination of various aspects about the grant of pension to the Ex-Shanbhogues. The Government, as a special case under Rule 235 and also under Rule 7 of KCSRs in relaxation of provisions of Exception below note 3 of Rule 237 passed an order providing for pension to these Ex-Shanbhogues. 7. In spite of the aforesaid Government Order, when Ex-Shanbhogues were not paid pension, they again approached this Court in W.P.No.8676/83 (R.K. SUBBRAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS) and other connected matters. This Court, in the said writ petition which was disposed of on 10.11.1983, held that the aforesaid Government Order was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its D.O.Note NO.FO (Spl) 6902/79 dated 20.11.1979, and therefore, where determination of tenure had taken place after a Village Accountant had put in 10 years or more qualifying service from 01.02.1963 but earlier to superannuation or consequently on the appointment of a person in his place under Section 16(1) of the KLR Act, they should be deemed to have retired from service and they were directed to be paid pension and given all consequential arrears of pension due to them. If they did not satisfy the said test, to pay compassionate allowance permissible in accordance with the Government Order dated 31.07.1979 to such of the petitioners who are found to be not having qualifying service. 8. The aforesaid order was challenged by the State by preferring W.P.No.2055-2068/1984, which came to be dismissed on 12th November 1984. The Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India preferred by the State against the said order also met with the same fate, as the Special Leave Petition was not entertained at the stage of admission itself. Thus, the direction issued by this Court for payment of pension attained finality. 9. Instead of complying with the said directions of the Court, the Government chose to issue a notification deleting clause (c) of the Government Order by way of Government Order dated 21.11.1985. Aggrieved by the same, the Shanbhogues challenged the same before the KAT in Application No.2760 to 2790 and connected matters. 9. Instead of complying with the said directions of the Court, the Government chose to issue a notification deleting clause (c) of the Government Order by way of Government Order dated 21.11.1985. Aggrieved by the same, the Shanbhogues challenged the same before the KAT in Application No.2760 to 2790 and connected matters. The Tribunal after taking note of the previous history and circumstances under which the said Government Order came to be passed and the subsequent orders passed by this V Court and the Apex Court giving effect to the Government Order, was of the view that deletion of clause (c) of the Government Order is not proper and therefore it set aside the Government Order dated 21.11.1985 under which clause (c) came to be deleted. The effect is, clause (c) is restored. The said order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court of India by preferring Special Leave Petition 21731 to 21863/95, which came to be withdrawn on 05.09.1995. Thus, the order of the Tribunal striking down the Government Order dated 21.11.1985 by which clause (c) which had been deleted from the Government Order was restored and it also attained finality. 10. Some of the Shanbhogues sought regularization of their services under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III Postal) (Special) Rules 1973. When the said request for regularisation was not considered by the Government, they preferred W.P.No.25695-96/81. On constitution of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, these writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as Application Nos.2318-19/1986 and connected cases. Those applications were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated 28.02.1987 holding that they did not fall under the definition of “local candidates” under the 1973 Rules and therefore they were not entitled for appointment under the aforesaid rules. 11. This order of the KAT was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.5932-41/87, 226-41/88 and 11396-97/88. These S.L.Ps were clubbed with Civil Appeal Nos.5326-27/83. The Supreme Court disposed of the said appeals and SLPs by a common order dated 24.02.1994 affirming the order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.1987. Thus, the claim for regularisation stood rejected by the Supreme Court. 12. In the mean while, Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules 1986, for short. “1986 Rules”, were made by the State Government which came into force on 04.07.1986. Thus, the claim for regularisation stood rejected by the Supreme Court. 12. In the mean while, Karnataka Civil Services (Special Recruitment of Local Candidates) Rules 1986, for short. “1986 Rules”, were made by the State Government which came into force on 04.07.1986. Rule 3(1) of the said Rules directed the appointment of local candidates to certain Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D posts in the State Civil Services. Even they were eligible for appointment under the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 or the rules specially made for such posts on the date of their `appointment as local candidates. Rule 3(2) provides that for the purpose of sub-rule 3(1), the local candidate must be a candidate so appointed before 5th July 1983 and must be in service of the State Government as on the date of the commencement of the Rules namely 04.07.1986. Temporary appointment of Shanbhogues had been continued by virtue of the interim orders granted by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Consequent to the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court by order dated 24.02.1994 the services of those persons and others similarly stated persons were terminated on communication issued in May-June 1994. Those intimations of termination were challenged by some of the applicants along with others before the KAT in Application No.1858-71/94 and connected cases. The said applications were disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 28.07.1995 directing the State Government to consider the case of the applicants for appointment under the 1986 Rules along with the case of one Raghavendra Rao whose application had been allowed by the Tribunal on 22.02.1989. The state Government accordingly considered the case of the applicants and passed an order dated 07.01.1987 holding that it was not possible to regularize the services of applicants and others under the 1986 Rules on the ground that they were not local candidates within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of 1986 Rules. The said rejection of request was challenged before KAT. The Division Bench of KAT felt that the matter required consideration by a Full Bench of KAT felt that the matter required consideration by a Full Bench of it. Therefore, the mater was placed before the Full Bench. The said rejection of request was challenged before KAT. The Division Bench of KAT felt that the matter required consideration by a Full Bench of KAT felt that the matter required consideration by a Full Bench of it. Therefore, the mater was placed before the Full Bench. The Full Bench of the Tribunal by its order dated 26.03.1998 allowed the applications and quashed the order dated 07.01.1987 and issued directions to the authorities to regularize the services of the applicants who have passed SSLC examination before 05.07.1983 under the 1986 Rules, which came into force on 04.07.1986 within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and made it clear that the services of the applicants who are in service not to be disturbed till the date of their regularisation. It also made it clear that the benefit of the order is not applicable to those who have passed the prescribed SSLC examination on or after 05.07.1983. since they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Rules in question, for the purpose of appointment as Village Accountant since the acquisition of qualification subsequently do no render them eligible. 13. Aggrieved by the said order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, the State preferred writ petitions before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.38797-832/98 disposed of on 4th September 2002, considered the order passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal and held that these ex-shanbhogues who were continued as deemed village accountants, cannot be described as persons appointed to this post and consequently they were not entitled to regularization of their services in accordance with the Rules, They were not local candidates within the meaning of Rule 8(27A), If they are not local candidates, the question of considering them for regularisation under the 1996 Rules does not arise, and, therefore the Tribunal was not justified in directing the case of applicants to be considered for regularisation in terms of 1986 Rules, and accordingly set aside the order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal. 14. The said order of the Division Bench of this court was challenged before the Apex Court in the case of RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 4 SCC 635 . 14. The said order of the Division Bench of this court was challenged before the Apex Court in the case of RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 4 SCC 635 . wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Division Bench and dismissed the appeals, by the order dated 12.2.2009. The said judgment also has attained finality and the claim of all these Ex-Shanbhogues for regularisation of service under the 1986 Rules has been rejected and it has attained finality. 15. The Division Bench of this Court while rejecting the claim of ex-shanbhogues for regularization of their services in so far as their claim for pension is concerned, made the following observations:- “The fact remains that even if the service by virtue of interim orders is excluded, the applicants had served the State Government for considerable period, It is for the State Government to consider such service and the further service rendered by virtue of the interim orders, to give any ad-hoc or ex-gratia relief. It is open to the applicants to give appropriate representation to the State Government for grant of any ad-hoc pension or ex-gratia payment in consideration of their services. However, the observation shall not create any enforceable legal right in favour of the respondents in the petitions, but is only a suggestion”. 16. It is thereafter that the respondents herein made a representation to the Government, for grant of pension. When the said request was negatived, they preferred applications before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. They contended that, after the abolition of the hereditary offices, they were continued as deemed village accountants by virtue of Section 16(2) of the KLR Act. They served the Government for varying periods either till they attained the age of superannuation or they were relieved by the Village Accountants appointed under Section 16(1) of the KLR Act. The services rendered by them are recorded in the Acquittance Register and the Service Registers opened after they started functioning as Village Accountants. In some of the cases ad-hoc pensions have been granted. In some cases they are helds to be entitled to the benefit of Rule 247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Therefore, they contended that they are entitled to pensionary benefits. 17. In some of the cases ad-hoc pensions have been granted. In some cases they are helds to be entitled to the benefit of Rule 247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Therefore, they contended that they are entitled to pensionary benefits. 17. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, taking note of the orders passed by the High Court, starting from the day of the Act was enacted and the reliefs granted therein, came to the conclusion that these ex-shanbhogues who continued as deemed Village Accountants after the abolition of the Act are entitled to pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred these Writ Petitions. 18. The learned Advocate General Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the State, assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal contended as under: Admittedly these respondents were not appointed to a substantive post and therefore they never became Government servants and consequently are not entitled to any pension,. Secondly he contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court which is affirmed by the Apex Court, these respondents cannot be treated as local candidates and consequently, their request for regularization has been rejected, which has attained finality. When they are held to be not local candidates, they cannot be grated as Government servants and therefore they are not entitled to pension. Thirdly, in the said proceedings they did not seek for pension. If not regularization. The same was not agitated. Therefore it is not open for them to agitated the said question by way of yet another proceedings. In the alternative he submits that the question whether these respondents are entitled to pension was also gone into in the said proceedings, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court the said request has been rejected and therefore the said question also is adjudicated and decided and they cannot re-agitate the same in the present proceedings. Further he contended that, to be eligible for pension, under the KCS Rules they have to satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 222. Though the State has power to relax any rules, by invoking Rule 7, Rule 222 is not relaxed. In those circumstances, as the respondents do not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 222 which is sine qua non for grant of pension and the respondents are not entitled to pension. Though the State has power to relax any rules, by invoking Rule 7, Rule 222 is not relaxed. In those circumstances, as the respondents do not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 222 which is sine qua non for grant of pension and the respondents are not entitled to pension. The Tribunal erred in ignoring the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court rendered in connection with relaxation of the aforesaid statutory provisions and committed serious error in holding that these Ex-Shanboga who are not appointed under the 1986 Rules are entitled to pension. The said order requires to be set aside. Without prejudice to the above contention, he contended that even if it is to be held that these respondents are entitled to pension, they are not entitled to the same from the date of retirement, but at best, they would be entitled to three years prior to their approaching the Tribunal claiming pension. 19. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Subramanya Jots, appearing for the respondents contended that by virtue of Rule 2 of the KCS Rules, the said Rules are applicable to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka who had entered the Government of Karnataka service whether in permanent or other capacity on or after 1st November 1956. Therefore the contention that it is applicable only to Government employees is misconceived. Secondly he contended that in the aforesaid proceedings referred to by the learned Advocate General, the question for consideration was whether these Ex-Shanbhogues after abolition of hereditary post and during their continuance as Village Accountants under Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 were entitled to regularization in the said service. In the said proceedings the question whether they were entitled to pension, whether they continued in service and was it a pensionable job, was not gone into. The excerption to the note appended to 3(b) of Rule 237, expressly stated that Shanbhogues were not entitled to pension. Therefore Government by invoking Rule 7 relaxed the said Rules. By invoking Rule 235, it awarded pension to those persons who did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 222. Article 132, specifically provides for pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who are absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants and who were not appointed under the Rules. It is in this background the Government order dated 28.11.1979 came to be passed. By invoking Rule 235, it awarded pension to those persons who did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 222. Article 132, specifically provides for pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who are absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants and who were not appointed under the Rules. It is in this background the Government order dated 28.11.1979 came to be passed. The said Government Order also provides for taking into consideration the services rendered during the period 01.12.1961 to 01.12.1963 in case of those Shanbhogues duly appointed. In fact, a claim was put forth for pension on the basis of the said Government Order, which judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the State has been withdrawn. The said judgment in those proceedings interpreting this Government Order and granting relief to these Ex-Shanbhogues, would operate as res judicata and at any rate the Government is estopped from contending to the contrary. Therefore it is not open for them to contend that in these proceedings that the claim of these Ex-Shanbhogues is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court or that it ought to have been agitated and not having been agitated in these proceedings, it is hit by doctrine of constructive res judicata. Therefore he submits that a reading of the Government order dated 28.11.1979, the circular dated 13.12.1983 and the judgment of this court, which has attained finality, makes it abundantly clear that Ex-Shanbogs who continued in service by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 who were not regularly appointed under the Rules, who had retired either on reaching the age of superannuation or by virtue of appointment made in their place under Section 16(1) are entitled to the benefit of pension. Lastly he contended that, the concept, that unless a person is a Government employee, he is not entitled to pension is totally misconceived. If a particular post is a pensionable post and if a person has worked in the said post for the minimum period prescribed, whether he be a permanent Government servant or a temporary Government servant, he is entitled to pension and that is the philosophy behind the grant of pension and the object underlining the pension. The Government order also meets the equitable consideration which arises in this case. The Government order also meets the equitable consideration which arises in this case. Further he contended that pension is payable from the date, the employee retires, and therefore it is not a fresh claim for adjudication. If once the respondents are entitled to pension, the said pension is payable from the date of retirement. In these circumstances, the question of limitation would not arise. For the foregoing reasons, no case for interference is made out. 20. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is:- “Whether the Shanbhogs. Patvaris, Karnamas, who were holding a hereditary office and were continued as Village Accountants under sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act are entitled to pension in law?” 21. The Tribunal, in answering the said question in favour of the said persons has relied on various Government orders passed from time to time. The three judgments of the Tribunal where the said claim for pension was upheld and consequently the pension was paid, is also relied on. It also relied on the Government Order dated 28.11.1979. On the basis of the aforesaid material it has been held that they are entitled to pension. In the course of the order, the Tribunal has clearly set out the entire Government orders and also referred to the judgments extensively and therefore it needs no repetition in this order. 22. However, the main ground of attack to the order of the Tribunal is, that, the full Bench of the Tribunal held that when they are not local candidates and they are not entitled to regularization in Government service, in other words, as they are not permanent Government servants, they are not entitled to pension and any judgment rendered by this court or by the Tribunal earlier to it would have no legal effect. PHILOSOPHY BEHIND PENSION 23. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to take note of the principle underlying the grant of pension and object behind it. The said question has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of D S Nakara and others-vs-Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 , where it has been held as under: “18. Why the pension is paid? Why it was required to be liberalized? Is the employer, which expression will include the State, bound to pay pension. Why the pension is paid? Why it was required to be liberalized? Is the employer, which expression will include the State, bound to pay pension. Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service. 19. What is a pension. What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division pre and post a certain date?” 24. These questions were answered by the Apex Court as under: 20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending pon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and 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 is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and 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 such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (AIR) 1976 SC 667). 21. There are various kinds of pensions and there are equally various methods of funding pension programmes. The present enquiry is limited to non-contributory superannuation or retirement pension paid by Government to its erstwhile employee and the purpose and object underlying it. Initially this class of pension appears to have been introduced as a reward for loyal service. 21. There are various kinds of pensions and there are equally various methods of funding pension programmes. The present enquiry is limited to non-contributory superannuation or retirement pension paid by Government to its erstwhile employee and the purpose and object underlying it. Initially this class of pension appears to have been introduced as a reward for loyal service. Probably the alien rulers who recruited employees in lower echelons of service from the colony and exported higher level employees from the seat of Empire, wanted to ensure in the case of former continued loyality till death to the allen rulers and in the case of later an assured decent living standard in old age ensuring economic security at the cost of the colony. 22. In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability. State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from undeserved want was recognized and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo was tat when the employer was physically and mentally alert, he rendered unto the master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount. 23. As the present case is concerned with superannuation pension, a brief history of its initial introduction in early stages and continued existence till today may be illuminating. Superannuation is the most descriptive work of all but has become obsolescent because it seems ponderous, It s genesis can be traced to the first Act of Parliament (in U.K.) to be concerned with the provision of pensions generally in the public offices. It was passed in 1810. he Act which substantively devoted itself exclusively to the problem of superannuation pension was superannuation Act of 1834. These are landmarks in pension history because they attempted for the first time to establish a comprehensive and uniform, scheme for all whom we may now call civil servants. It was passed in 1810. he Act which substantively devoted itself exclusively to the problem of superannuation pension was superannuation Act of 1834. These are landmarks in pension history because they attempted for the first time to establish a comprehensive and uniform, scheme for all whom we may now call civil servants. Even before the 19th century, the problem of providing for public servants who are unable, through old age or incapacity, to continue working, has been recognized, but methods of dealing with the problem varied from society to society and even occasionally from department to department. 24. A political society which has a goal of setting up of a welfare State, would introduce and has in fact introduced as a welfare measure wherein the retrial benefit is grounded on considerations of State obligation toils citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age, but the evolving concept of social security is a later day development. And this journey was over a rough terrain. To note only one state in 1856 a Royal Commission was set up to consider whether any changes were necessary in the system established by the 1834 Act. He Report of the Commission is known as “Northoote Trevelyan Report”. The Report was pungent in its criticism when it says that: “in civil services comparable to lightness of work and the certainty of provision in case of retirement owning to bodily incapacity, furnish strong inducements to the parents and friends of sickly youth to endeavour to obtain for them employment in the service of the Government, and the extent to which the public are consequently burdened, first with the salaries of officers who are obliged to absent themselves from their duties on account of ill health, and afterwards with their pensions when they retire on the same plea, would hardly be credited by those who have not had opportunities of observing the operation of the system.” 25. This approach is utterly unfair because in modern times public services are manned by those who enter at a comparatively very young age, with selection through national competitive examination and ordinarily the best taken gets the opportunity. 26. Let us therefore examine what are the goods that pension scheme seeks to subserve? This approach is utterly unfair because in modern times public services are manned by those who enter at a comparatively very young age, with selection through national competitive examination and ordinarily the best taken gets the opportunity. 26. Let us therefore examine what are the goods that pension scheme seeks to subserve? A pension scheme consistent with available resources must provide that the pensioner would be able to live; (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self-respect, and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre-retirement level. This approach may merit the criticism that if a developing country like India cannot provide an employee while rendering service a living wage, how can one be assured of it in retirement? This can be aptly illustrated by a small illustration. A man with a broken arm asked his doctor whether he will be able to play the piano after the cost is removed. When assured that he will, the patient replied, that is funny, I could not before’. It appears that in determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ration between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving, now that the past. We owe it to them and ourselves that they live, not merely exist. That philosophy prevailing in a given society at various stages of its developed profoundly influences is social objectives. These objectives are in turn a determinant of a social policy. The law is one of the chief instruments whereby the social policies are implemented and pension is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanisms primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed’. 27. 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. 27. 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 are 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, though 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. But these views have become otiose. 28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appeal to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Dodge v. Board of Education, (1937) 302 US 74: 82 Law Ed 57 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 undeserved want. 29. 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 socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to ageing process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the he 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 allowances or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is learned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that he most practical raison d’etre for pension is the 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. 30. 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. 31. From the discussion three thins emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a mater of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to ten months under liberalized pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 32. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. 32. Having succinctly focused our attention on the conspectus of elements and incidents of pension the main question may now be tackled. But, the approach of Court while considering such measure, is of paramount importance. Since the advent of the Constitution, the State action must be directed towards attaining the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution which, when achieved, would permit us to claim that we have set up a welfare State. Article 38(1) enjoins the State to strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effective as it may a social order in which justice social, economic and political shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Article 39 (d) enjoins a duty to see that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women and this directive should be understood and interpreted in the light of the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : ( AIR 1982 SC 879 ). Revealing the scope and content of this facet of equality. Chinnappa Reddy. J. speaking for the Court observed as under (para 1): “Now thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence and the forward looking posture of this Court, the underprivilleged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court. The Judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the quest of the Five Star hotel.” Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that can’t be done when they are in service, can that can’t be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? If that can’t be done when they are in service, can that can’t be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retiree later, Article 39(e) requires the State to secure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and children of tender age are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 41 obligates the state within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to provide assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of underserved want. Article 43(3) requires the State to endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. 25. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of DEOKINANDAN PRASAND V. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS REPORTED AIR 1971 SC 1409 , dealing with the right to pension, has observed at paras-30 and 32 as under: “The grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to the office employee not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant.” “undertaking by us” RULES COVERING PERNSION 26. In the back ground of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary for us to find out whether there are any Rules, which provide for such pension to these class of persons. 27. In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Karnataka has made the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 27. In exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Karnataka has made the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Rule 2 of the said Rules makes it clear that Parts 1, II, V, VI and VII and the provisions of Parts III and IV relating to procedural matters hall apply to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka. Rule 2(c) makes it clear that Part IV of these rules other than the provisions thereof referred to in clause (a) of this rule, shall apply to the following clauses of Karnataka Government servants in pensionable establishment. Rule c(i) provides that all persons who have entered Karnataka Government Service. Whether in a permanent or other capacity on or after 1st November 1956 in respect of whose conditions of service, the Governor of Karnataka is competent to same rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. This it clear that provisions of Part IV which deal with ordinary pension are made applicable not only to persons who entered Karnataka Government Service in a permanent capacity, but they apply to other capacities also, subject to condition that hey must have entered such service after 1st November 1956. 28. Therefore, Part-IV of the Rules, which deals with pension, is made applicable to the persons, who entered Karnataka Government service, whether in a permanent or other capacity on or after 1st November, 1956. In this context, it is necessary to notice Rule 222, which prescribes qualification for pension, which reads as under: “222. The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First - The service must be under Government Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third - The service must be paid for by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following sections: {Note-Service of Government servants deputed to work under the Tungabhadra Board is deemed to be service qualifying for pension under this rule.] [Provided minimum qualifying service required for a Government servant for earning pension is 10 years, which is now amended and substituted by 15 years w.e.f. 1.9.2003, which has not application to the facts of this case.] 29. Section 237 reads as under:- “237. Service paid from the consolidated Fund of the State qualifies. Section 237 reads as under:- “237. Service paid from the consolidated Fund of the State qualifies. The Fact that arrangements are made for the recover, on the part of Government of he whole, or part, of the cost of an establishment or Government servant does not affect the operation of this principle: Provided that the establishment or Government servant is appointed, controlled and paid by Government. Note 1.- In making arrangements for the recovery of cost of establishments, it should not be forgotten that Government has to bear not only the immediate cost but also that of leave allowances and pensions. Note 1,- The amount to be recovered from the person for whose benefit an additional establishment is created shall be the gross sanctioned cost of the service which will not very with the actual expenditure of each month. Dearness and high price allowances hall also form part of the gross sanctioned cost of the establishment and the whole expenditure on account of these allowances shall be recovered for periods of leave also. [Note 3.- In the case of Government servants deputed to Commercial Departments, Government Commercial Undertakings or to the Offices of the board of Management for industrial concerns, contribution for their pension and leave allowances shall be recovered at 1/4th of the total emoluments drawn by then in such Commercial Departments, Commercial Undertakings or Offices.] Exception.- Shanbhogs, Patels and other Village servants are not entitled to pension although they are paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State.” 30. Therefore, a Government servant, to qualify for pension, must satisfy the aforesaid three tests namely, his service must be under the Government, holding a substantive and permanent post and he must be paid by the Government. 31. The Shanbhouges who were working under the Government were being paid from the consolidated funds of the State. However, in view of the judgments rendered by this Court and the Apex Court, they cannot treated as working in a substantive and permanent post. Therefore, Rule 222 is not attracted. Similarly, because of he exception set out above, they were not entitled to pension. However, the very same Rules provide for relaxation. RULES PROAVIDING RELAXATION In this regard Rule 7 of the KCSRs reads as under: “Rule 7. Therefore, Rule 222 is not attracted. Similarly, because of he exception set out above, they were not entitled to pension. However, the very same Rules provide for relaxation. RULES PROAVIDING RELAXATION In this regard Rule 7 of the KCSRs reads as under: “Rule 7. Where the State Government is satisfied that the operation of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may, by order dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with any case in a just and equitable manner.” 32. Yet another provision, which requires to be noticed in this context is Rule 235 which reads as under: “Government may be general or special order permit, service other than pensionable service, for performing which a Government servant is paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State or from a Local Fund, to be treated as duty counting for pension. In issuing such an order, Government shall specify the method by which the amount of duty shall be calculated and may impose any condition which it thinks fit.” 33. From the aforesaid statutory provisions. It is clear that a Village Accountant is a holder of a pensionable post. If a Village Accountant had been duly appointed and thereafter, after, putting in the qualifying service, he had retired on reaching the age of superannuation or in any other manner, rules provide for payment of pension as prescribed under the Rules. However, exception to note 3 of Rule 237 expressly stated that Shanbhogues,. Patels and other Village servants are not entitled to pension although they are paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State. In view of the aforesaid express rule, Shanbhogues were not entitled to pension. It is because of this express bar under the Rules, when the Government decided to grant them the pension, they had to invoke Rule 7 which empowers it to dispense with or relax the application of that rule, to such an extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in just and equitable manner. 34. 34. When we look into the philosophy behind this pension and the fact that these Shanbhogues had rendered loyal service to the Government till they were removed from service or retired and that they are in the evening of their life and they are citizens of this country, a welfare State, the Government thought that this express provision was unjust and unreasonable as the said provision was coming in the way of granting pension under the Rules, they exercised their power under Rule 7 and relaxed the aforesaid provision, thereby, making it clear that Ex-Shanbhogues are entitled to pension. 35. For a person to be entitled for a pension under these rules, he has to satisfy Rule 222. First condition was, his service must be under the Government which condition is satisfied by these Ex-Shanbhogues. Third condition was, he must be paid for by the Government which condition was also satisfied. But they did not satisfy the record condition that employment must be substantive and permanent. Therefore, the aforesaid Rule did not apply to Ex-Shanbhogues to be entitled to the pension. In these circumstances, the Government invoked Rule 235 of the KCS Rules, 1958 which expressly states that the Government may by a general or special order, permit service, other than the pensionable service, for performing which a Government servant is paid from the Consolidated Found of the State or from a local Fund, to be treated as ‘duty’ counting for pension. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 235, the power is vested in the Government to provide for pension in respect of the person who does not satisfy the requirements contemplated under Rule 222. 36. It is in this background the Government Order dated 28.11.1979 is to be considered GRANT OF PENSION which is extracted as under: “PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Sub: Payment of pension to Ex-shanbhogues who were appointed as village Accountants – Orders regarding – ORDER NO. RD 182 MVS 77, BANGALORE, DATED 28-11-1979 READ: 1. Government Order No. RD 153 MVS 70, dated 8-2- dated 8-2-1972: 2. Govt. Letter No. RD 208 MVS 75, dt: 30-11-1976/3-12-76; addressed to the Divisional commissioner, Mysore Div., 3. Letter No. HOA.CR. 57/77-78, dated 21-6-1977 From the Divisional Commissioners, Bangalore Div., Bangalore. 4. Letter No. PVI/R1/60, DT. 9-8-1977 from the Accountant General, Bangalore. Government Order No. RD 153 MVS 70, dated 8-2- dated 8-2-1972: 2. Govt. Letter No. RD 208 MVS 75, dt: 30-11-1976/3-12-76; addressed to the Divisional commissioner, Mysore Div., 3. Letter No. HOA.CR. 57/77-78, dated 21-6-1977 From the Divisional Commissioners, Bangalore Div., Bangalore. 4. Letter No. PVI/R1/60, DT. 9-8-1977 from the Accountant General, Bangalore. PREAMBLE: All Village Officer with its incidents attached thereto were abolished with effect from 1-2-1963 as per the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. According to Rule 2 of the Karnataka Government Services (RSB) Vas. (C&R) Rules, 1961, the village Accountants were to be recruited to a district-wide cadre and the posts were to carry the pay prescribed from time to time. Till the (new) Village Accountants we4re selected, trained and posted, the former village Shanbhogues, Karnama and patwarsis as the case may be, were appointed as such without hereditary rights under sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964 subject to the terms and conditions which existed before the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was introduced. Some of the Village Officers filled writ petitions in the High Court claiming salaries prescribed for the date of coming into force of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964. The High Court in petition No. 5473 to 5476 of 1969 with the abolition of the Village Offices by the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the posts have become stipendiary and that the payment to these Village Officers of Potagi does not arise and that the Village Officers appointed as such are entitled to be paid salaries prescribed by Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules, 1961, as lesser sums were being paid as Potagi to them. The High Court has also decided that in making payment of salaries to the shanbhogues as from 21.1.1966, they should be given the increments in the scale as also the benefit of the revision of the pay scales of pay effected in 1970 less so much of the amount that was paid as Potagi and other emoluments actually paid to tem subject to the condition that such payment shall not be made to Village Officers prior to a date three year immediately preceding the date of presenting of the writ petitions. 2. In its judgment in Writ Petitions Nos. 2. In its judgment in Writ Petitions Nos. 1203 to 1216, 1221 and 1222 of 1971 delivered on 19-5-1971, the High Court has held that the law laid down in the earlier judgment in WP No. 5473 of 1969 decided on 16-3-1971 also applies to these cases and it is not necessary that in every case separate orders are required to be passed nor is it necessary that every one of the Village Accountants should be complied to file separate writ petitions and seek relief. 3. After considering the implications of the judgments in the above WPs. Government directed in Govt. Order 8-2-1972 cited at Sl.No. (1) above, that the orders of the high court in the above writ petitions be implemented, in all other cases, the claim of Shanbhogues shall be limited to a period immediately preceding three years from the date of the high Court order viz. 19-5-1971. Further, in Government letter dated 30-11-1976, cited at SL No. (2) above, it has been clarified inter-alia, the view that the service rendered by ex-shanbhogues as local candidates followed by regular appointment would count for pension. 5. The Accountant-General. Bangalore in his letter dated 9-8-1977 read at SL.No. (3) has sought clarification as to how the services of hereditary Shanbhogues rendered by them as deemed village Accountant on the strength of Stay Order issued by Courts, till the date of superannuation-retirement, are to be reckoned for purposes of pay7. pension, etc. The Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore Divisions are also pressing for issue of suitable clarifications by Government in the matter for avoiding difficulty and delay in finalizing the pension claims of Ex-Shanbhogues who have been permitted to retire from service or relieved fo their duties on attaining the age of superannuation. pension, etc. The Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore Divisions are also pressing for issue of suitable clarifications by Government in the matter for avoiding difficulty and delay in finalizing the pension claims of Ex-Shanbhogues who have been permitted to retire from service or relieved fo their duties on attaining the age of superannuation. ORDER After careful examination of various aspects about the grant of pension to the Ex-Shanbhogues, who were absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants and retire, Government are pleased to order, as a special case, under rule 235 and also under Rule 7 of KCSRs in relaxation of provisions of Exception below Note 3 of Rule 237 ibid as follows: a) Ex-Shanbhogues )Shanbhogues, karnams and patwaris) who were continued in service be deemed to have become regular Village Accountants from 1-4-1964 and their services treated as having been regularized with effect from that date solely for the purpose of cou8nting service from that date (i.e., 1-4-1964) towards service qualifying for pension: b) In cases where valid appointment orders were issued to the Shanbhogues to work as Village Accountants under the provisions of C&R Rules, 1961, from 1-12-1961 or from a later date but before 1-2-1963, the continuous service rendered by such appointees from the date of such appointment to the date of retirement be treated as service qualifying for pension: c) In case not covered by (b) above, the service from 1-2-1963 to 31-3-1964 rendered by Ex-Shanbhogues continued as Village Accountants be added to the service rendered by them from 1-4-1964, as service qualifying for pension: d) The Ex-Shanbhogues will not be entitled to any actual or notional claims for pay and allowances for service rendered by them prior to 21-1-1966 which is the date admitted by the High Court for allowing their pay and allowances on a notional basis. e) Shanbhogues who will become eligible for pensionary benefit under this order should forego the compassionate allowance drawn by them in pursuance of Government Order No. RD 182 MVS 77. dt. 31-7-1979. 2. The Deputy Commissioner fo districts are requested to prepare and record specifically in the service registers of all Shanbhogues to the effect that their services have been regularized with effect from 1-4—1964 and also that they were in service of Government from a date earlier than 1-2-1963, under the Rules, 1961, the exact date of such appointment be recorded in the Service Records. 3. 3. The Deputy Commissioners of districts are also requested to ensure finalization of pension records of the retired shanbhogues and to forward them to the Accountant General, Karnataka, Bangalore for authorizing payment expeditiously. 4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its UO Note No. FD (Spl). 6902/19, dated 20-11-1979. By order and in the name of The Government of Karnataka. Sd/- (ASHOK V. DAVID). Under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department.” 37. A perusal of the Government Order shows that the said order was passed for payment of pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who were appointed as Village Accountants. If these Ex-Shanbhogues had been appointed as Village Accountants in terms of the 1986 Rules, then, the KCSRs would automatically apply. They would have in such a situation satisfied the requirements under Rule 222 and they would be eligible for pension under the Rules. Here was no necessity for the Government to pass any Government Order for payment of pension is Ex-Shanbhogues who were appointed as Village Accountants. It is clear from the preamble to the said order where it is categorically mentioned, that after referring to the Act and the Rules, that former village Shanbhogues, karnams and Patwaris, as the case may be, were appointed as such, without hereditary rights under Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964, subject to the terms and conditions which existed before the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. 1961 was introduced. Then, they have referred to various legal proceedings initiated by such persons and the orders passed by the High Court directing payment of the salary to them according to pay, etc., Thereafter, in para 5 it is categorically mentioned that the Accountant General, Bangalore, in his letter dated 9-8-1977 read with Sl.No.3 has sought for a clarification as to how the service of hereditary Shanbhogues rendered by them as deemed Village Accountant on the strength of stay orders issued by the Courts, till the date of superannuation/retirement, are to be reckoned for the purposes of pay, pension, etc. The Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore Division were also pressing for issue of a suitable clarification by the Government in the matter for avoiding difficulty and delay in finalizing the pension claims of Ex-Shanbhogues who have been permitted to retire from the services or relieved of their duties on attaining the age of superannuation. The Divisional Commissioners of Bangalore and Mysore Division were also pressing for issue of a suitable clarification by the Government in the matter for avoiding difficulty and delay in finalizing the pension claims of Ex-Shanbhogues who have been permitted to retire from the services or relieved of their duties on attaining the age of superannuation. From this it is clear that the difficulty expressed by these authorities was only with reference to those persons who were not appointed as Village Accountants under the Rules, but, in respect of those persons who were continued as Village Accountants by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Karnataka land Revenue Ac t, 1964. Therefore, this Government Order was not meant for the persons who were regularly appointed under the 1986 Rules, who would be eligible for pension as a matter of right, based on the statutory provisions. It is in this context, we have to appreciate the order portion wherein it is stated that, after careful examination of the various aspects about the grant of pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who were absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants and retired, the Government is pleased to order, as a special case, under Rule 235 and also Rule 7 of KCSRs in relaxation of the provisions of exception below Note 3 of Rule 237. Therefore, this Government Order is issued for and made applicable to those persons to whom KCSRs did not apply. The intention of the Government is to make it apply. To make it apply to Ex-Shanbhogues, they had to relax the provision of exception below Note 3 of Rule 237 which expressly stated that Ex-Shanbhogues are not entitled to pension under the Rules. Therefore, by invoking Rule 7, that express prohibition contained in the Rules was relaxed. As these Government servants were not regularly appointed, they were not holding any substantive and permanent posts and therefore, they did not satisfy the qualification prescribed under Rule 222 and were not entitled to pension, the Government invoked Rule 235 and extended the benefit of pension notwithstanding that these persons did not satisfy the requirement prescribed under Rule 222. That is the reason why, in the order portion thereof there is a reference to these Rules which empower the Government under the Rules to extend the benefit of pension to persons who are not otherwise eligible under the Rules. That is the reason why, in the order portion thereof there is a reference to these Rules which empower the Government under the Rules to extend the benefit of pension to persons who are not otherwise eligible under the Rules. Clause (a) of the Government order makes the intention of the Government very explicit. It states that Ex-Shanbhogues (Shanbhogues, Karnams and Patwaris) who were continued in service be deemed to have become regular Village Accountants. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act provided for their continuance till alternative arrangements are made. Therefore, the said provision is applicable to those Ex-Shanbhogues who were continued in service after 1-4-1964 and were declared to be deemed to have become regular Village Accountants. Then, their services are treated as having been regularized with effect from that date solely for the purpose of counting service from that date i.e., 1-4-1964 towards qualifying service for pension. The intention of the State Government is very clear, Though they were continued in service from 1-4-1964, under Section 16(2), intention was not to regularize them and make them permanent employees, but they were treated as regular employees for the purpose of counting their service, for pension. Therefore, the contention that clause (a) applies only to the persons who were appointed under the Rules has no substance. 38. Insofar as clause (b) is concerned, it applied to cases where valid appointment orders were issued to Shanbhogues to work as Village Accountants under the provisions of C & R Rules of 1961 from 1-12-1961 or from a later date or before 1-2-1963, the continuous service rendered by such appointees from the date of such appointment till the date of retirement shall be tr5eted as service qualifying for pension i.e., though the Act was passed on 1-12-1961. It came into force from 1-2-1963, but in the meanwhile, under C & R Rules of 1961, appointments were made of few Shanbhogues. Then, clause (c) makes it clear that, in cases not covered under clause (b), the service from 1-2-1963 to 31-3-1964 rendered by Ex-Shanbhogues continued as Village Accountants be added to the service rendered by them from 1-4-1964 as qualifying service qualifying for pension. Clause (e) makes it clear that Shanbhogues who become eligible for pensionary benefit under this order should forego the compassionate allowance drawn by them in pursuance of the Government order dated 31-7-1979. Clause (e) makes it clear that Shanbhogues who become eligible for pensionary benefit under this order should forego the compassionate allowance drawn by them in pursuance of the Government order dated 31-7-1979. Therefore, this Government order was meant to grant the benefit to those Ex-Shanbhogues who were continued in service as deemed Village Accountants by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is only to them that the compassionate allowance was paid by the Government and not to the persons who were regularly appointed. Therefore, the argument of the learned Advocate General relying on the word ‘absorbed on recruitment;’ necessarily means that there should be recruitment process, then only should be appointed as permanent government servants and then only, this Government order applies to them is without any substance. 39. It is in this context, necessary to notice the meaning of the word ‘recruitment’ as held by the Apex Court in the case of PROFULLA KUMAR SWAIN vs PRAKASH CHANDRA MISRA & OTHERS (1993(3) Supp. SCC 181). At paragraph 29 it held as under: “At this stage, will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words ‘recruitment’ and ’appointment’. The term Recruitment’ connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the world ‘appointment’ means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.” 40. Therefore, the word ‘recruitment’ used in the order does not mean as contended by the learned Advocate General. A notification has to be issued under the Act or Rule, calling for applications, examination has to be conducted, interviews have to be conducted and a list of selected candidates is to be published. In the context in which it is used, all that it means is enlistment and the other word used is ‘absorbed’ which means that they wee not appointed but the person hose services are continued were absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants. It is in this context, necessary to look into Section 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which reads as under: “16. It is in this context, necessary to look into Section 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which reads as under: “16. Village Accountant: (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the general orders of the State Government appoint a Village Accountant for a village or group of villages and he shall perform all the duties of a Village and he shall perform all the duties of a Village Accountant prescribed in or under this Act or in or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall hold office under and be governed by such rules as may be prescribed. (2) Persons holding the office of a village Accountant for a Village or group of villages immediately prior to the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be Village Accountants for such village or group of villages till another person is appointed under sub-section (1). 41. The language employed in the aforesaid section is very clear. The appointment of Village Accountant is under Section 16(1). Whereas, under Section 16(2), persons who were holding the office of Village Accountant immediately prior to the commencement of the Act i.e., 1-4-1964 shall be deemed to be Village Accountants of such village till another person is appointed under sub-section (1). From this deemed provision, it is clear that they are not Village Accountants actually, but by a fiction of law, they were treated as Village Accountant’ found at Section 2(39) wherein the word ‘Village Accountant’ has been defined as under: “(39) Village Accountant means a Village Accountant appointed, or deemed to be appointed under section 16:” 42. If a Village Accountant is appointed under Section 16(1), KCSRs apply to him with full force automatically, and he would be entitled to pension and other monetary benefits under the said Rules. Because the said KCSRs did not apply to deemed Village Accountants and the Government wanted to extend the benefit of pension to these deemed Village Accountants. it exercised its power under Rules 7 and 235 and made the pension applicable to persons who were otherwise not entitled to under the Rules. So, it is in this context, when we look at the order, it is explicit. it exercised its power under Rules 7 and 235 and made the pension applicable to persons who were otherwise not entitled to under the Rules. So, it is in this context, when we look at the order, it is explicit. When it says Ex-Shanbhogues who were absorbed on recruitment as Village Accountants and retired, they refer to those Ex-Shanbhogues who continued to hold the post of Village Accountant under Section 16(2) after abolition of the posts which they held under 1908 Act. 43. In fact, at no point of time, there was any doubt in the mind of the Government regarding the pension which is to be paid to these Ex-Shanbhogues before passing of this order as set out in the very order itself. Thus, Shanbhogues who either reached the age of superannuation or who were removed from service by virtue of the appointment of Village Accountants being made in their place under Section 16(1), claimed pension. When it was not granted, they approached this Court and several orders came to be passed both by the tribunal as well as by this Court directing payment of pension. It is in this context, doubt arose in the minds of the Accountant and Divisional Commissioners who were expected to give effect tot eh orders of the Court. It is in that context they addressed their letters to the Government seeking from it to clarify the position. Therefore, the order dated 28-11-1979 was passed by the Government to provide pension to Ex-Shanbhogues who continued as deemed Village Accountants by virtue of sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act who retire either on reaching the age of superannuation or their services were terminated as contemplated in the aforesaid provision. RESJUDICATA 44. In spite of the said Government order, when the said benefit was not extended to those persons, they approached this Court putting forth their claim on the basis of this order. It the case of R.K. SUBBARAYA & OTHERS VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DECIDED ON 10-11-1993 it was observed as under: “4. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide it s G.O. Note FD(Spl) 6902/79. dated 20-11-1979. According to the above order, the services of all hereditary village accountant who continued to discharge the duties after 1-4-1964 is required to be counted as qualifying service from 1-4-1964. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide it s G.O. Note FD(Spl) 6902/79. dated 20-11-1979. According to the above order, the services of all hereditary village accountant who continued to discharge the duties after 1-4-1964 is required to be counted as qualifying service from 1-4-1964. Further, the service rendered between 1-2-1963 to 31-3-1964 is also required to be counted as qualifying service. In view of the above Government Order every one of the Village Accountant is entitled to count his service for pension from 1-5-1963 till the date on which he retired from service, for pension, provided the period of such serviced is not less than 10 years as that is the minimum qualifying service Rules. 6. While the case of Village Accountants who retired on attaining 55 years of age and after putting in a service of ten years is clear from the government Order. It is not clear as to what would be the position of Village Accountants who have put in more than 10 years of service after 1-2-1963, but is so happened that before they reached the age of superannuation of 55 years they were relieved pursuant to an appointment made under Section (16)(1) of the Act in the matter of payment of pension. 7. A clarification is necessary in respect of such cases for the reason that the question of granting of pension arises only an retirement and not otherwise than retirement. On a reading of the Government order, the intention appears to be to give the benefit of pension to all Village Accountants if they had put n 10 years or note of qualifying service commencing from 1-2-1963 before their tenure came to an end, whether by way of termination or by treatment as otherwise it is likely to lead to individual discrimination. To illustrate, a Village Accountant might retire on 1st March 1963 i.e., on reaching superannuation, after putting 10 years and one month of service in terms of the Government Order, he will be entitled to pension. In another case the tenure of a Village Accountant who has continued by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Act might come to an end, say, on 1-1-1979, after he has put in 16 years of qualifying service, and that termination came just before he reached the age of superannuation. In another case the tenure of a Village Accountant who has continued by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Act might come to an end, say, on 1-1-1979, after he has put in 16 years of qualifying service, and that termination came just before he reached the age of superannuation. Consequent on the appointment of another person under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. In tat case, even though he has put in 16 years of qualifying service after 1-2-1963, he would not be entitled to pension on the sole ground that he was not retired from service but his services were terminated. Therefore, it appears to me that in cases where the determination of tenure had taken place after a Village Accountant had put in 10 years or more of qualifying service from 1-2-1963 but earlier to superannuation consequently on the appointment of person in his place under Section 16(1) of the Act, it would be reasonable for the Government to direct that such persons should be deemed to have retired from service or to direct payment of pension in relaxation of the rules in exercise of the power under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Civil Service or otherwise. The said writ petition came to be allowed with the direct ions contained in para 10 which reads as under: “10. In the result, I make the following order: (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) A Writ in the native of mandamus shall issue to the respondents. (a) to qualify and to pay the pension to each of the petitioners after verifying the service particulars furnished vide statement at paragraph 5 of this order, and to give all consequential arrears of pension due to them. (ii) A Writ in the native of mandamus shall issue to the respondents. (a) to qualify and to pay the pension to each of the petitioners after verifying the service particulars furnished vide statement at paragraph 5 of this order, and to give all consequential arrears of pension due to them. (b) To pay compassionate allowance permissible in accordance with the Government order dated 31-7-1979 to such of the petitioners who are found to be not having the qualifying service: (i) In Writ Petition No.15139/83, 12415/83, 14417/83, 11498/83, 11499/83, 14093/83, 14092/83, 19315/83, 19316/83 and 19317/83 there shall be a further direction directing the concerned Deputy Commissioner to consider as to whether the claim made by each of the petitions that he had not been paid the salary for the period set out in the statement at paragraph 5 of this order though he had actually worked and if after such consideration it is found that he had worked but his salary and allowances though due according to law had not been paid to the said period, the same shall be paid to him. Time for compliance is six months form the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the learned Government for the State..” 45. In the course of the said order, it was contended that pension is payable only to the persons who reached the age of superannuation but not to those persons whose services were terminated in terms of Section 16(1) and (2). That contention was negatived by the Court and held that even the persons whose services came to an end as contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Act are entitled to the benefit of pension and ultimately this Court issued a mandamus directing the authorities to look into the service register of each of those persons and pay them pension in terms of the Government Order. The said order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and Special leave Petition against eh said order was withdrawn by the State. Thus, interpretation placed by the Court on the said Government Order attend finality. It is to get over the said order the Government passed yet another government order deleting clause (c). The said Government Order was set aside by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which order was up held by the Apex Court and clause (c) was restored. Thus, interpretation placed by the Court on the said Government Order attend finality. It is to get over the said order the Government passed yet another government order deleting clause (c). The said Government Order was set aside by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which order was up held by the Apex Court and clause (c) was restored. As the confusion did persist, the Government issued a circular on 13-12-1983 in respect of the special addition to the qualifying service for pension under Rule 247A of the KCSRs. First part of the said circular reads as under: “In Circular No.FD (Spl.) 77 PE/T 81 dated 14-5-1981, among other issues, it was clarified that the benefit of Rule 247 A of the KCSRs is not admissible to the retired Shanbhogues/Village Accountants whose retirement benefits are regulated under the provisions of G.O.No. RD 182 MVS 77 dated 28-11-1979”. 46. The4refore, it is clear that the case of Ex-Shanbhogues and Village Accountants who were not regularly appointed are governed by the Government Order dated 28-11-1979, and to them Rule 247-A of KCSRs is no application. 47. In this context, it is relevant to point out that apart from Subbaraya’s case, one B.L. Venkatachalaiah had approached the Tribunal for direction of payment of pension. The relief was granted. The said order also attained finality. In fact, contempt proceedings were initiated for disobedience of the Court order. At that stage, orders were obeyed and pension was granted and is being paid to them even till today. 48. It is in this background, few other admitted facts requires to be noticed. These Ex-Shanbhogues were appointed as Shanbhogues under the provisions of Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. It was a hereditary office. With the Constitution of India coming into force, as hereditary office is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution the said Office and emoluments paid to that office were abolished by enacting Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. These holders of village offices were paid “potigi” as consideration for the services rendered by them. 49. The Apex Court IN SHANKARANAYANA VS. STATE OF MYSORE ( AIR 1966 SC 1571 ) dealing with the effect of abolition of the old posts, held that the posts created by the new Act are stipendiary. They carry salaries according to the grades created by the Rules. The incumbents are transferable and their service is pensionable. 49. The Apex Court IN SHANKARANAYANA VS. STATE OF MYSORE ( AIR 1966 SC 1571 ) dealing with the effect of abolition of the old posts, held that the posts created by the new Act are stipendiary. They carry salaries according to the grades created by the Rules. The incumbents are transferable and their service is pensionable. Different qualifications are prescribed for the new posts. From a consideration of the incidents attaching to the new posts, it is clear that eh old posts have been abolished and new posts have been created and that the whole complexion of the posts has been changed. Therefore it held that even after abolition, the same posts are sought to be continued, the aforesaid posts now created were held to make the difference. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T VENKATARAMAIAH VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DECIDED ON 15-3-1971) held that the persons who are continued in those posts after abolition of old posts, are entitled to be paid salary on the scales prescribed under the Rules and not potigi. Therefore, though these Ex-Shanbhogues were continued in office after abolition of the office till the Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and thereafter they were continued in service by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, they were held to be entitled to potigi till 21-1-1966 and thereafter to a pay scale of 65-1-70-2-1990 and the State was directed to make the said payment. In terms of the said order, the Government Order came to be passed on 8-2-1972 directing payment of salary even to these Ex-Shanbhogues who are not appointed as Village Accountants but who are deemed to be Village Accountants. In fact, the Government notwithstanding the aforesaid judicial pronouncements holding that they are entitled to pension, though it was not implemented, recognizing right of these persons to pension, passed the Government Order providing for compassionate allowance of Rs.100/- per month which was subsequently revised by Government Order dated 20-7-1991 enhancing the same to Rs.500/- per month as adhoc pension which was subsequently increased to Rs.100/-per month. Therefore, unwillingly they have recognized the right of Ex-Shanbhogues for payment of pension and have been paid in terms of the Government Order. 50. Therefore, unwillingly they have recognized the right of Ex-Shanbhogues for payment of pension and have been paid in terms of the Government Order. 50. It is in this background, taking advantage of the fact that a few of these Shanbhogues sought for regularization of their services under the 1986 rules which came to be allowed by a Full bench of the Tribunal, which order came to be set aside by the Division Bench of this Court holding that they would not fall within the definition of ‘local candidates’ and therefore they are not entitled to regularization, which order is now been affirmed by the Apex Court, the Government contends that as they were not appointed as Government servants, as they did not have qualification to be appointed as Government servants, the question of paying pension to them would not arise. It was also contended that the said judgment would operate as resjudicata. The Tribunal has gone into this question in detail and has set out various judgments of the Apex Court on this aspect and; has shown as to how this plea of resjudicata is misplaced. The question which arise for consideration in the said proceedings was whether these Ex-Shanbhogues were entitled to be regularized in service. The question whether they were entitled to the pension in terms of the aforesaid Government Order was not the subject matter of the said proceedings and was not gone into and decided in the said proceedings. Even if there are a few observations here and there, it is only a passing reference which do not decide these disputed questions. The said question arose for consideration for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was justified in upholding their claim, basing its decision on the earlier judgments of this Court, which had attained finality, to which the Government is a party. In fact, the said judgment would operate as resjudicata and the Government is estopped from contending to the contrary as they have accepted the said judgment. Further, that is not a judgment in personem but it is a judgment in rem and therefore the benefit of the said judgment is applicable to all persons who are continued as deemed Village Accountants by virtue of Section 16(2) if they have put forth their qualifying service. Further, that is not a judgment in personem but it is a judgment in rem and therefore the benefit of the said judgment is applicable to all persons who are continued as deemed Village Accountants by virtue of Section 16(2) if they have put forth their qualifying service. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the Government to contend that, because these Ex-Shanbhogues were not appointed as Village Accountants, they are not eligible for pension. As set out above, Rules are applicable not only to the permanent Government servant, they apply equally to temporary Government servants. But, whether the Government servant is permanent or temporary, he had to satisfy the qualification prescribed under Rule 222 to be eligible for pension. As admittedly, these persons did not satisfy the said requirement, Government invoked its power under Rule 7, Rule 235 and extended the benefit of pension to these Ex-Shanbhogues. From the aforesaid discussion, the statutory provisions and decisions on the point, it is clear that these respondents – Ex-Shanbhogues are entitled for pension by virtue of the said Government Order. JUSTIFICATION 51. If we keep in the background the judgment of the constitutional Bench in the cases of NAKARA as well as DEOKINANDAN PRASAD, is clear that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government. The right to pension is a valuable right vested in the Government servant. Grant of pension dies not depend upon the order being passed by the authorities to that effect. The right to receive pension flows to the employee, by virtue of the Rules. It is the obligation on the part of the State to provide security in old age. It is not only a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. The retrial benefit is grounded on ‘considerations of State obligation it its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age. The concept of social security is a later day development’ which is a goal set up in a political society in order to make it a welfare State. The concept of social security is a later day development’ which is a goal set up in a political society in order to make it a welfare State. The term ‘pension’ has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments, to one retired from service. 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. The pension scheme introduced by way of Government Order should receive a liberal construction and the Courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane. 52. In the instant case, all these Ex-Shanbhogues rendered their services or their duty to the Government before Independence and even after Independence. What is abolished is the hereditary nature of the office and the emoluments attached to that office. Their services were not dispensed with, on the contrary their service was continued. Their service was utilized. As the hereditary office could not have been continued after coming into force of the Indian Constitution, as it offended article 14 of the same, it was abolished. Therefore, notwithstanding the abolition of the hereditary office and the emoluments attached there to, the fact that they rendered duty to the Government cannot be lost sight of. Even after the abolition, by virtue of a statutory provision, as contained in 16(2) their services were continued and they continued to serve the Government. They have rendered their service to the Government. They were paid remuneration from the consolidated fund of the Government which fact is not in dispute, The only reason for denying them pension is that they were not appointed as permanent government servants, that as per the rule, is a condition precedent for extending the benefit of pension under the Rules. But, if one sees the philosophy behind extending the benefit of pension as set out by the Apex Court, when admittedly, they have rendered service to the Government for more than a decade, in some cases three to four decades, and rendered service even after the Act came into force, by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, to deny them the pension solely on the ground that they were earlier holding hereditary office is unfair, unjust and arbitrary. There is no justification for denying these persons the pension solely on the ground that they did not become government employees, over which they had no control. In fact, such an action would offend Article 14 of the Constitution also as they are entitled to the benefits conferred under the Indian Constitution. GOVERNMENTS APPROACH 53. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, in these petitions, the Advocate General addressed a letter dated 3.8.2009 to the Government bringing to their notice the observations made by this Court which reads thus: “…….the Shanbhogues should be given an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month as an adhoc amount on compassionate ground as is done in respect of patels. Further, a lump sum can be made having regard to the number of years of services put in by the Shanbhogues. For each of year of service, an amount can be determined and that amount can be paid on lump-sum basis” 54. On receipt of the said letter, the opinion of the Finance Department was sought for. The Finance Department by letter dated 29.2.2008 in No.630 Expenses 7/1009 has set out the thinking of the Government and its agencies as under: “They have agreed for enhancing the honorarium of Ex-Shanbogs from Rs.500-00 to Rs.1000-00. However, in so far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, the Revenue Department has to furnish the particulars such as the number of years of service, the amount received by them as salary and the gratuity paid to Village Accountants who retired from the said period and prepare a scheme and furnish the said particulars to the Finance Department. On that basis, a scheme for payment of gratuity could be worked out. Thereafter a scheme was formulated and again the opinion of the Finance Department was sought for. The Finance Department by its communication dated 27.11.2009 opined that, as there is no provision for payment of pension to Ex-Shanbogs. If they have worked for more than nine months in a year during their service, it can be treated as one year of service and a sum of Rs.2000-00 could be paid as ex-gratia payment for such completed years of service. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the Court and the Court felt that the amount of Rs.2000-00 is inadequate and suggested for enhancement of the same. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the Court and the Court felt that the amount of Rs.2000-00 is inadequate and suggested for enhancement of the same. Thereafter, the Advocate General promptly informed the Government about the view of the Court. In turn, the opinion of the Finance Department was sought for. The Finance Department by their communication dated 17.12.2009 opined that they had already agreed for review of the adhoc pension of Rs.1000-00 per month to Ex-Shanbogs and also for a payment of Rs.2000-00 for every completed year. This adhoc pension was agreed to be paid as retirement gratuity. According to the Rules persons who have completed 33 years of service is entitled to 16.5% of basic pay as gratuity. In other words, for every year of service 15 days basic pay is given as retirement/death cum gratuity. If Rs.5000-00 is to be paid, they would have drawn Rs.10,000-00 as basic pay. The basic pay of a Village Accountant is hardly Rs.5,800-00 at present. These Ex-Shanbogs are not entitled to any retirement gratuity under the Rules. Even then, on humanitarian consideration, the above proposal was agreed. The agreed amount of Rs.2000-00 would be equivalent to the persons who were regularly appointed and who have retired 25 years after service. In spite of it, as the High Court has opined that Rs.2000-00 per year would be inadequate, they recommended for Rs.3000-00 per year as ex gratia payment. Accordingly the cabinet in its meeting held on 03.08.2010 agreed to enhance the honorarium from Rs.500-00 to Rs.1000-00 to Ex-Shanbogs from 01.11.2008 and exgratia payment of Rs.3,000-00 per year to Ex-Shanbogs who continued as Village Accountants from 01.02.1963 onwards with the conditions stipulated therein. 55. Therefore, it shows that the Government is not averse to paying pension to these Ex-Shanbhogues and as a democratically elected Government in a welfare State, they are sensitive to this human problem and are attempting to find a solution. 56. The narration of facts as aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the parties are agitating their rights before the judicial forum for the last 50 years. It is possible that this order could be challenged in the Apex Court and it may take considerable time for final conclusion. 56. The narration of facts as aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the parties are agitating their rights before the judicial forum for the last 50 years. It is possible that this order could be challenged in the Apex Court and it may take considerable time for final conclusion. As all the respondents who are now before the Court are senior citizens, in spite of this Court declaring their rights, we are afraid they may not see the fruits of this order. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to suggest after calculating the pension payable in terms of this order, if these pensioners were to give up a portion of their claim, it would be appropriate for the Government to consider such request and make a one time payment so that the amount which they are paying would be utilized by the persons who are before this Court to whom it is actually meant and would not leave it to their legal heirs, even if it is decided in their favour after a couple of years. The suggestion we are making because, in principle, the Government has accepted to make a payment of Rs.3,000/- per year in addition to payment of Rs.1,000/- as pension per month. Therefore, that indicates the amount which the Government is willing to pay. In terms of this order if the amount is calculated, that would show what is the amount these people are legally entitled to. In between, via media could be arrived at by sitting across the table. These litigation which has spread for more than 50 years can be put to an end to. This judgment would not operate as resjudicata, as there are no more village offices to be abolished and no more claims to be put forth before this Court. In our view, that would meet the ends of justice. We hope that this suggestion itself would not lead to another round of litigation. Suggestion is made to put an end to these litigation, thus giving a quietus to an episode, which is the direct out come of giving effect to the provisions contained in the Indian Constitution, after the Constitution coming into force. 57. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we pass the following: ORDER All the writ petitions are dismissed. The Ex-Shanbhogues are entitled to pension under the Government order dated 28.11.1979. 57. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we pass the following: ORDER All the writ petitions are dismissed. The Ex-Shanbhogues are entitled to pension under the Government order dated 28.11.1979. The State is directed to fix and pay the pension in terms of the Government Order dated 28.11.1979 as well as the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order without fail. Till the pension is fixed in terms of the Government Order dated 28.11.1979, the petitioner-State is directed to: (i) Pay honorarium at the rate of Rs,1000/- from 1-11-2008 up to date, within 3 months, as agreed as per the subsequent Government Order. (ii) Pay ex-gratia payment at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per year from the date of retirement or termination of service under Section 16(1) of the KLR Act. Within 3 months, as agreed as per the subsequent Government Order. (iii) The amount paid as honorarium and ex-gratia payment shall be deducted from out of the arrears of the pension payable according to rules and only the balance amount of arrears of pension is payable to the Shanbhogues. (d) No costs.