JUDGMENT B.P. RAY, J. — This writ application was filed under Arti¬cles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Sarat Kumar Mohanty, a retired District Judge. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner having expired on 26.11.2003, his legal heirs have been substituted by order dated 10.7.2009 in Misc. Case No.2557 of 2003. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the order passed by the Government in Home Department refusing to exercise the power conferred in the State Government under Rule 186 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called as “the Rules”) for extending the benefit of addition of qualifying service to the service period of the deceased-petitioner as visualized under Rule 36 of the Rules. This order of the State Government has been impugned in this writ application and annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ application. 3. The impugned order under Annexure-10 is a fall out of the judgment of this Court rendered in O.J.C. No.18287 of 1998 disposed of on 23.11.2000. The prayer in O.J.C. No.18287 of 1998 was primarily based upon the judgment of this Court rendered in O.J.C. No.1937 of 1986 which is reported in 1995 (I) OLR 597 (Sarat Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa & Ors.). To put it dif¬ferently, the State Government having rejected the representation of the deceased-petitioner to grant him benefits under Rule 36 of the Rules, the writ application in O.J.C. No.18287 of 1998 was filed. This Court having taken note of all the relevant facts into account passed the following directions : “I, therefore, direct the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Rule 186 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 and also take into consideration the state¬ment of the petitioner that late G.H. Panda who had also entered into Government service prior to 23.11.1962 had been extended benefit of addition of 5 years of service under Rule 36 of the said Rules. The case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the observation made above within a period of four months from today and necessary orders be passed. The case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the observation made above within a period of four months from today and necessary orders be passed. In the event, a decision is taken to extend benefit to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 on consideration of the case of the petitioner under Rule 186 of the said Rules, consequential bene¬fits with regard to pension as directed by this Court in OJC No.1937 of 1986 be extended to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date when such a decision is taken by the State Government. The second relief claimed is not considered as the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.” 4. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered by this Court, the State Government by the impugned order under Annexure-10 has refused to extend the benefit of addition of 5 years as the qualifying service under Rule 36 of the Rules. This order has been passed in purported exercise of the power under Rule 186 of the said Rules. 5. Return has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 justifying the impugned order. It was stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the direction of this Court in OJC No.1937 of 1986 the deceased-petitioner was allowed to retire from Government service with effect from 30.6.1978 on attaining the age of superannuation by Home Department Notification No.20787 dated 12.4.1996. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the State Government has treated the period from 16.6.1971 to 17.1.1974 as duty and the period from 18.1.1974 to 30.6.1978 as extraordinary leave. Referring to Rule 36 of the Rules it was stated in the counter affidavit that the benefit of the said provision can be extended to a person appointed to the service or post under the Government after 23.11.1962; whereas the petition¬er entered into Government service on 10.12.1947, which was prior to 23.11.1962. Therefore, the provision of Rule 36 was of no assistance to the petitioner. So far as Rule 186 of the Rules it was stated that the case of the petitioner does not justify and warrant any relaxation by invoking the said provision inasmuch as the case of late G.H. Panda cannot be pressed into service to relax the rule in favour of the petitioner. So far as Rule 186 of the Rules it was stated that the case of the petitioner does not justify and warrant any relaxation by invoking the said provision inasmuch as the case of late G.H. Panda cannot be pressed into service to relax the rule in favour of the petitioner. It was further stated in the counter that no undue hardship was caused to the petition¬er to exercise power under Rule 186 of 1977 Rules. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner is not akin to that of late G.H. Panda, so far as their date of retirement and manner of retirement are concerned. Having stated thus it was contended in the counter affidavit that the Govern¬ment did not find any undue hardship to have been caused to the deceased- petitioner, which necessitates exercise of power con¬ferred on the State Government under Rule 186 of 1977 Rules for extending the benefit finding place in Rule 36 of the said Rules. Accordingly, it was stated that the writ application was devoid of merit. 6. During the course of hearing of the writ petition it was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petition¬ers that the State Government while passing the impugned order has not taken into account the case of late G.H. Panda though it was specifically directed to take the same into consideration in the judgment rendered in O.J.C. No.18287 of 1998. Therefore, by order dated 21.7.2009, I had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to file a better affidavit to resolve the dispute. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 7.8.2009, 10.8.2009 and 12.8.2009 when time was sought on behalf of the State to file such affidavit. But when the matter was listed on 19.8.2009, the learned Additional Government Advocate expressed his inability to file the affidavit as directed. Accordingly, learned Advocate General was requested to remain present in the Court at 2.00 P.M. on the same day and to suggest remedial measures. Accordingly, learned Advocate General appeared and assured the Court that the affidavit as required by order dated 21.7.2009 shall be filed. Unfortunately, despite the assurance of the learned Advocate General, no such affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the writ application on the basis of the materials available on record. 7. Accordingly, learned Advocate General appeared and assured the Court that the affidavit as required by order dated 21.7.2009 shall be filed. Unfortunately, despite the assurance of the learned Advocate General, no such affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the writ application on the basis of the materials available on record. 7. Undisputedly, Rule 36 of the Rules, 1977 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner authorizes the State Government to extend the benefit of addition of 5 years as qualifying service of the pensioner subject to satisfying the conditions enumerated therein. True it is the deceased-petitioner was appointed prior to 23.11.1962, which is the appointed date under sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the Rules. The question arises as to whether the State Government has power to relax any of the provisions of the Rules, 1977 so far as it causes undue hardship in any particular case. Such power has been vested in the State Government under Rule 186 of the Rules. This Court in the judgment passed in O.J.C. No.18286 of 1998 had specifically directed the State Government to consider this aspect of the matter taking into consideration the fact that late G.H. Panda, who had entered into service prior to 23.11.1962 was also extended the benefit of additional 5 years service under Rule 36 of the aforesaid Rules. The State Government appears to have passed the impugned order stating inter alia that it did not notice any hardship to have been caused to the deceased-employee warranting exercise of the power under Rule 186 of the Rules. But the State Government did not take into consideration the case of late G.H. Panda who was extended the benefit of addition of 5 years service, though he had entered into the serv¬ice prior to 23.11.1962 alike the petitioner. The impugned order on the face of it being not in consonance with the directions of this Court referred to above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order has been mechanically passed and there has been no application of mind by the State Government. 8. The impugned order on the face of it being not in consonance with the directions of this Court referred to above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order has been mechanically passed and there has been no application of mind by the State Government. 8. In the counter affidavit the order was sought to be justified on the reasoning that the case of the petitioner was not identical with the case of late G.H. Panda, so far as their date of retirement and manner of retirement are concerned. Fur¬ther it was stated in the counter that such benefit was allowed to late G.H. Panda while he was in service about 22 years back. It needs no emphasis that the case of Late G.H. Panda has not been noticed by the State Government while passing the impugned order. But the same was sought to be justified in the counter affidavit. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affi¬davit or otherwise (see the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and oth¬ers, AIR 1978 SC 851 ). 9. Referring to the power of the State Government under Rule 186 of the Rules 1977, it was submitted by the learned coun¬sel for the petitioner that there has been an arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government apart from the fact that the same is discriminatory. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, it is necessary to notice Rule 186 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977, which is as follows : “Where the Governor is satisfied that the operation of the provisions of these rules cause undue hardship in any particular case, he may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of the said provisions to such extent and subject to such condi¬tion as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” The power under the aforesaid provision can be exercised by the State Government when the State Government feels that the operation of the provisions in the Rules causes undue hardship. The State Government was of the view that no undue hardship was caused to the deceased-employee. The power under Rule 186 is undoubtedly discretionary. The State Government was of the view that no undue hardship was caused to the deceased-employee. The power under Rule 186 is undoubtedly discretionary. But while exercising the discretionary power, the State Government was required to be judicious and the order should not be arbitrary and discriminatory. As has been indicated in the preceding paragraph the impugned order is clearly discriminatory in view of the fact that the person similarly situated having been extended the benefit, there is no rational behind the decision of the State Government not to extend such benefit to other similarly situated employees alike the petition¬er. By addition of 5 years towards qualifying service would make the deceased-petitioner eligible to receive full pension and refusal thereof deprives the deceased-employee of such benefit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same do not cause any undue hardship. 10. From the records it appears that the deceased-employee has 30 years 6 months and 21 days service to his credit. By addition of the period of service as provided under Rule 36 of the Rules, 1977 would make the deceased-petitioner eligible to receive full pension which he was deprived of on unjust and unreasonable grounds. In this connection reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 wherein it has been laid down that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. It has also been held therein that pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered and the same was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic jus¬tice 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. Therefore, the State Government is expected to exercise its discretionary power uniformly to all the pension¬ers for the purpose of computation of pension irrespective of the date of retirement and the manner of retirement. The impugned order suffers from the vice of discrimination apart from the fact that the same has not taken into consideration the earlier order of this Court indicated above. 11. The impugned order suffers from the vice of discrimination apart from the fact that the same has not taken into consideration the earlier order of this Court indicated above. 11. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the State Government has not acted in bona fide in refusing to exercise the power under Rule 186 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order under Annexure-10 is quashed and the State Government is directed to add 5 years towards the qualifying service of the deceased-petitioner for superannuation pension. Such exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order and necessary financial benefits accrued thereunder shall be released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner within a period of 3 months thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.