JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri R.K. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Th. Sobhana, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri K.R. Pamei for the respondent No. 4. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for various directions including the direction directing the respondents to allow her husband to avail the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300/- as was given to similarly situated retired Principals as well as to grant full pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner’s husband and then, to her. 3.1 According to the petitioner, she is the wife of Late Karam Hemchandra Singh who retired as the Principal, Oriental College, Imphal, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 15-04-1992. The petitioner’s husband was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Manipur College, Imphal and accordingly, he joined the Manipur College on 18-09-1962. His service was confirmed w.e.f. 19-09-1963 vide Resolution No. 7 dated 19-05-1969 of the Governing Body, the Manipur College and while serving as Lecturer in the said College, the UGC pay scale of 1973 was implemented in Manipur. He was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 01-04-1972 vide Government order dated 27-06-1975. 3.2 In response to an Advertisement issued by the Secretary, Governing Body, the Kha Manipur College, Kakching inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Principal, the petitioner’s husband applied for the same and on the recommendation of the Interview Board, he was selected for appointment to the post of Principal vide order dated 01-10-1975. Thus, he joined the Kha Manipur College, Kakching as the Principal and while the petitioner’s husband was working as the Principal, Kha Manipur College, the Government of Manipur took over 9 (nine) Aided Colleges including the Kha Manipur College vide Government order dated 04-09-1978 and accordingly, the petitioner’s husband along with six others were provisionally appointed as the Principals w.e.f. 04-09-1978 and the Government of Manipur vide its order dated 30-11-1990 made the posts of all the Principals as permanent. 3.3 The petitioner’s husband was transferred and posted as the Principal, Oriental College, Imphal vide Government order dated 16-07-1979. 3.3 The petitioner’s husband was transferred and posted as the Principal, Oriental College, Imphal vide Government order dated 16-07-1979. In the year 1987, the UGC revised scale of pay for University and College Teachers was implemented w.e.f. 01-01-1986 but it was implemented in Manipur vide order dated 03-10-1988 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Manipur. At the initial stage of implementation of the said UGC Scheme, all the Principals irrespective of their length of services were placed at the scale of Selection Grade of Lecturers. Pursuant to the Finance Department’s order dated 03-10-1988 and on the recommendation of Committee of Officers, the Government of Manipur issued another order dated 28-03-1990 declaring that the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- would be given to those Principals who fulfil the following criteria: (a) Principals who have completed 8 (eight) years of service as Principals. (b) Principals who have completed 28 (twenty eight) years of service as a College Lecturer irrespective of the length of service as Principals. (c) Principal of College awarding Master’s Degrees, subject to the condition that separate Recruitment Rules are framed for the post of Principal for such Post Graduate Colleges. 3.4 The petitioner’s husband retired from service w.e.f. 15-04-1992, on attaining the age of superannuation, treating his service from 31-01-1991 to 15-04-1992 as deemed to have been engaged by the Government on extension. When the Government of Manipur issued an order dated 02-02-2000 according sanction to the placement of Shri Henkholen Sitlhou, retired Principal, Presidency College, Motbung in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- w.e.f. 01-01-1986, the petitioner’s husband made a representation dated 25-08-2001 to the Advisor (K), Government of Manipur requesting him to accord the higher UGC scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/-. However, no reply was given thereto. 3.5 The Government of Manipur issued an order dated 23-12-2004 according sanction to the placement of four retired Principals in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7,300/- w.e.f. the date shown against their names in the order. However, the name of the petitioner’s husband was left out in the list of the retired Principals who had been given the benefits of the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7,300/- w.e.f. the date shown against their names in the order. However, the name of the petitioner’s husband was left out in the list of the retired Principals who had been given the benefits of the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- and no reason whatsoever was given for his exclusion from the list although his name figured in the list furnished by the Director of Education (U) vide its letter dated 14-07-2003 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Hr. Edn.), Government of Manipur. The grievance of the petitioner’s husband was compounded by the institution of a departmental enquiry vide Government Memorandum dated 20-01-2006. However, in the enquiry, the charges levelled against him were found to be baseless and exaggerated and accordingly, the State Government issued an order dated 24-09-2010 closing the Departmental Proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband made several representations to the concerned authorities to allow him to avail the benefits of higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- as was given to the similarly situated retired Principals and consequential pension with retirement benefits as applicable to the retired Principal. However, no response was received by him in respect of the said representations. 3.6 The petitioner’s husband expired on 24-09-2012 without getting the benefits of the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- even though he tried his level best to get justice during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioner get the pension and other retirement benefits worked out at the earlier scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/-. A few months after the demise of the petitioner’s husband, an RTI activist, Shri Th. Kunje Singh, a resident of Kwakeithel Thokchom Leikai, Imphal submitted an RTI application on 02-02-2012 seeking a status report regarding payment of full pension and retirement benefits in respect of the petitioner’s husband and in respect thereof, the Under Secretary (Higher Education), Government of Manipur addressed a letter dated 20-10-2012 to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Manipur Information Commissioner, Imphal informing its inability to supply the information. Shri Th. Kunje Singh submitted another application dated 18-12-2013 to the SPIO (Addl. Shri Th. Kunje Singh submitted another application dated 18-12-2013 to the SPIO (Addl. Secretary), Higher Education seeking the current status report regarding the payment of full pension and retirement benefits in respect of the petitioner’s husband and in response thereto, the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education vide its letter dated 06-02-2014 expressed its inability to supply the information sought for by the RTI applicant stating that the application did not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents by not granting the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- to the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The instant writ petition is contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the name of the petitioner’s husband was left out in the list of retired Principals who have been given the benefits of higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- because of the circumstances narrated at para 7 itself. It is further stated that the Administrative Department has been taking keen interest/intention to process the matter of placement of the petitioner’s husband, in the higher pay scale, who retired about 20 (twenty) years as per relevant rules, the Government Memorandum and UGC Guidelines and that other Department like Finance and DP are required to be consulted before taking necessary action for grant of higher scale of pay. Para 7 of the affidavit is reproduced herein below: “7. That, with reference to para No. 13 of the writ petition, it is to submit that there was a charge that while the petitioner’s husband was serving as Principal-in-Charge of Oriental College had connived with one A. Lalit Singh, Lecturer (Geography), Oriental College, Imphal to allow the later to join as Lecturer (Geography) while his (A. Lalit Singh) application for extension of study leave forwarded by the Principal himself was under process with the Government of Manipur, the petitioner’s husband had given charge to Shri A. Lalit Singh as Lecturer (Geography) on 31-12-1987 on TR-1 by quoting Govt. Order No. 1/6/73-S/SE (Pt.) dated 04-07-1988. It was alleged that the TR-1 was clearly manipulated since it quotes a Government order dated 04-07-1988. Hence, it was alleged that the petitioner’s husband failed to maintain integrity in discharging his official duty and as such, the deceased Govt. Order No. 1/6/73-S/SE (Pt.) dated 04-07-1988. It was alleged that the TR-1 was clearly manipulated since it quotes a Government order dated 04-07-1988. Hence, it was alleged that the petitioner’s husband failed to maintain integrity in discharging his official duty and as such, the deceased Govt. employee deserves punitive action under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s husband as was holding a supervisory post, has failed to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of the Government servant under his control, therefore the deceased Govt. employee is/was guilty of violating Rule (3)(1) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. It is further to submit that the Director of Vigilance, Manipur vide letter No. 295/SP-V/88/990 dated 27th April, 1989 brought out to the Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur the fact finding report for manipulation of the date of joining on duty of Shri A. Lalit Singh, Lecturer (Geography), Oriental College thereby suggesting inter alia to take disciplinary action against Shri K. Hemchandra Singh, Principal, Oriental College and Shri A. Lalit Singh for acts of commission and omission mentioned in the said fact finding report. In the meantime, vide Govt. Order No. 1/186/92-S/SE dated 16th March, 1992, the petitioner’s husband had retired from service w.e.f. 15-04-1992 before conducting due Departmental Enquiry while in service. The Commissioner (Hr. Education), Govt. of Manipur vide Memorandum No. 1/127/94-S/SE dated 20th January, 2006, on the recommendation of Vigilance Commission for misconduct and misbehaviour since the year 1989, proposed to hold an enquiry against the husband of the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 for violation of Rule 3(2)(1) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. However, he charges are not found proved. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the name of the petitioner’s husband was left out of the list of retired Principals who had been given the benefit of the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4,500-7,300/-.” An affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has also been filed and the stand indicated therein is that the Office of the Accountant General does not have any administrative power over the affairs of the State Government and it is for the State Government to take appropriate decision in respect of the grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300/- and the respondent No. 4 would be in a position to implement the court’s order only after necessary order being issued by the State Government in compliance with the court’s order. 5. It has been submitted by Shri R.K. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the denial of higher pay scale to the petitioner’s husband, while the same having been granted to the similarly situated retired Principals, is plainly discriminatory; that while issuing the Government order dated 23-12-2004, the State Government has violated the principles of natural justice for the reason that no prior opportunity was given to the petitioner’s husband to explain his position and that the inaction on the part of the State Government during the last 14 years is highly unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. His contention appears to have some considerable force for the reason that it is nowhere stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner’s husband is not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300/- and all that the Administrative Department has submitted is that it has been taking keen interest to process the matter of placement of petitioner’s husband in the higher pay scale as per rules and before taking any action, the relevant departments are required to be consulted by it. The main circumstance or the reason on the basis of which the name of the petitioner’s husband could not be included in the list of retired Principals who have been given the benefits of higher pay scale, is that a vigilance case was pending. Admittedly, on the basis of the report submitted by the Director, Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 27-04-1989, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner’s husband with the result that the charges were not found proved and accordingly, an order dated 24-09-2010 was issued by the State Government closing it. 6. As regards the law relating to pension, this court in para 5 of the judgment and order dated 20-06-2016 passed in W.P. (C) No. 484 of 2015, Kh. Damayanti Devi Vs. State of Manipur has observed as under: “5. The law relating to right to pension is no longer res integra and it is well settled that pension is not a bounty. In the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. Damayanti Devi Vs. State of Manipur has observed as under: “5. The law relating to right to pension is no longer res integra and it is well settled that pension is not a bounty. In the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that pension is a right and 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. This view was relied upon and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 describing lucidly as regards pension and in many other subsequent decisions. In fact that there is no point of multiplying the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the law laid down in Deokinandan Prasad’s case (supra) has been referred to and relied upon. Shri H.S Paonam, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions including that of Deokinandan Prasad’ case and D.S. Nakara’s case, has held that it is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. It has further been held that it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 7. It is unfortunate that the petitioner’s husband has expired without enjoying the fruit for the long service rendered by him to the State Government. In fact, after the disciplinary proceedings being closed vide Government order dated 24-09-2010 with a finding that the charges levelled against him were found not proved, appropriate and immediate steps ought to have been taken by the Administrative Department for placement of the petitioner’s husband in the higher scale of pay of Rs. In fact, after the disciplinary proceedings being closed vide Government order dated 24-09-2010 with a finding that the charges levelled against him were found not proved, appropriate and immediate steps ought to have been taken by the Administrative Department for placement of the petitioner’s husband in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500- 7300 with effect from 01-10-1984 vide letter dated 14-07-2003 of the Director of Education (U) as has been done in respect of four retired Principals. The Administrative Department appears to have failed to do that and to have lost sight of the fact that when a right has accrued in favour of an employee, there is a corresponding duty to be discharged by it. The stand of the Administrative Department as reflected in its affidavit that it has been taking keen interest to process the matter of placement of the petitioner’s husband is unbelievable for the reason that it has not placed any material on record to show it. It is almost six years from the day when the petitioner’s husband was absolved of all the charges. Despite a number of representations being submitted to the concerned authorities by the petitioner’s husband in the year 2010 and 2011, the same appear to have fallen on deaf ears of the State Government. Another stand taken by the Administrative Department in its affidavit is that before taking necessary action, the other Departments like Finance, DP etc. are required to be consulted by it. It is not an issue and there can be no dispute about it at all but that does not mean that the Administrative Department can sleep over it for years together and then, say after five years that prior consultation is required before necessary action is taken. Consultation amongst various Departments of the State Government is an internal matter and it has nothing to do with the petitioner’s husband, whose right to receive pension has been infringed, for no fault of his, due to lapses on the part of the State Government. Consultation amongst various Departments of the State Government is an internal matter and it has nothing to do with the petitioner’s husband, whose right to receive pension has been infringed, for no fault of his, due to lapses on the part of the State Government. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government, it is the duty of the State Government to release pension within a reasonable time, failing which consequences ought to follow including payment of interest for denial of enjoying pension from the date of entitlement. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The respondents and in particular, the respondent No. 1 shall place the petitioner’s husband in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- with effect from 01-10-1984 as determined vide letter dated 14-07-2003 of the Director of Education (U) or from 01-01-1986 when Shri M. Ibotombi Singh, Ex-Principals who was similarly situated, had been placed in the said higher scale of pay within a period of three months from today; (b) The respondents shall work out the full pension and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner’s husband on the basis of the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- within three months from today and pay the same regularly thereafter; (c) The respondents shall pay to the petitioner arrears of her husband’s pension and other pensionary benefits, after the same having been worked out as per direction (a) & (b) above, within four months from today failing which the said arrears shall accrue an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of four months till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.