JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on day’s list along with the application for stay. 3. This appeal has been preferred by Champdany Municipality and its Chairman against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23rd November, 2016, in WP 25402 (W) of 2016 (Sushil Chandra Deb Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The order impugned is setout, in its entirety, hereinbelow : – “The writ petitioner is an Ex-employee of Champdany Municipality. He retired from service after 29th February, 2016. He says that his dues on account of gratuity and pension have not been paid. Learned counsel for the Municipality produces a statement, which is taken on record, according to which out of the gratuity amount Rs. 3,65,000/-, Rs. 1,40,000/- were paid in two instalments of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh on 28th October, 2016 and 16th November, 2016. Mr. Sarkar for the petitioner submits on instructions that this amount is not credited to the bank account of the petitioner. This matter will be investigated by the Chairman of the Municipality. He will ensure that the said amount is immediately, within three working days of communication of this order, credited in the bank account of the petitioner, if not credited earlier. Further he will ensure that the balance claim on account of gratuity of Rs. 2,25,000/- and arrear pension are to be paid by 31st March, 2017. The current pension has to be paid punctually. The said outstanding amount on account of gratuity and pension is to be paid in such a manner so that at least Rs. 1,50,000/- is received by the petitioner by 15th December, 2016. Interest on gratuity will be paid according to the Payment of Gratuity Act. All the papers are before this court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the parties upon usual undertaking.” 4. All the papers are before this court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the parties upon usual undertaking.” 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants that in spite of applying for funds from the State Government, only partial funds have been released and this has caused acute financial hardship to the Municipality. 5. It seems the primary reason for the appellants in approaching this Court is that the concerned Municipality is passing through financial hardship. This has been stated in Ground-II of the Memorandum of Appeal. In Ground-IV of the Memorandum of Appeal, it has been stated that the concerned municipality is “running through acute financial problem” due to various reasons. It has been further stated therein that the concerned municipality should have been given sufficient time to regularise payment of pension to the writ petitioner along with his other retiral dues instead of directing full payment of all dues and monthly payment of pension. 6. It was certainly not the business of the writ Court to consider whether a statutory corporation – such as Champdany Municipality – was passing through financial hardship or crisis, as is the case sought to be made out before this Court. It is admitted position that the respondent/writ petitioner was in a pensionable service and served the concerned municipality for around 38 years. Once he retired, he was entitled to all his retiral dues including pension. There are a catena of judgments which essentially speak on the same line and that is, pension is neither a largesse nor a bounty and is, in fact, a valuable right of the employee which accrues in his/her favour upon attaining superannuation. As such, we do not find any palpable infirmity of reasoning in the order impugned which would warrant an interference by this Court in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal preferred by Champdany Municipality and its Chairman. 7. As such, we do not find any palpable infirmity of reasoning in the order impugned which would warrant an interference by this Court in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal preferred by Champdany Municipality and its Chairman. 7. At this stage, learned advocate representing the appellants submits that in order to demonstrate his clients’ bona fides, he has brought two cheques – one cheque for a sum of Rs.90,000/- on account of balance gratuity and another cheque for a sum of Rs.65,655/- towards arrear pension calculated up to 30th November, 2016. He also submits that considering the acute financial crisis the appellant no.1 is passing through, some time may be granted by this Court so that it is in a position to pay the respondent/writ petitioner current monthly pension punctually, as directed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Since the respondent/writ petitioner has entered appearance, the learned advocate representing him is directed to accept the two cheques amounting to a total sum of Rs.1,55,655/-, without prejudice to his client’s rights and contentions. 9. So far as the prayer made by the learned advocate representing the appellants seeking time for payment of current monthly pension is concerned, we grant the appellants three months’ time in order to ensure regular payment of current monthly pension in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, without letting it run into arrears. In this regard, the appellants shall take necessary steps to ensure adequate funds are available for disbursement of the pensionary dues of the respondent/writ petitioner and also others similarly situate and circumstanced in order to lessen the burden of the High Court in entertaining and disposing of such writ petitions, which ordinarily ought not to come before it, had it not been for the plight of those retired persons such as the writ petitioner in the instant case. 10. The instant appeal and the application for stay are accordingly disposed of. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Biswanath Somadder & Sankar Acharyya, JJ. I agree.