JUDGMENT : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner which is an association of the Government employees recognized by the Government of Tripura filed this petition being aggrieved by the mode of implementation of the judgment and order dated 07.02.1996 delivered in Civil Rule No.525 of 1995 by the Gauhati High Court which had territorial jurisdiction over the State of Tripura at that time. According to the petitioner, the said judgment and order dated 07.02.1996, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, mandates the respondents in perpetuity to continue the parity of the rate of dearness allowance with the Central Government and to release the due dearness allowance, as calculated at 36% on the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 06.07.2011. 2. The petitioner has admitted that on 01.10.1995 the employees of the Government of Tripura were entitled to 44% of the dearness allowance, meaning there had been an arrear of 44% on that day. In that background, a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 525 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner. It has been asserted that immediately after filing of the said writ petition, the respondent declared release of 12% DA out of the said arrear and thus only 32% remained uncompensated. By the judgment dated 07.02.1996 delivered in Civil Rule No.525 of 1995, the Gauhati High Court has observed as under: “34. As a matter of fact, the decisions relied on and as referred to above by learned Advocate General are not relevant for the present case. In the case in hand it can be very well said that by declaration of its acceptance of the recommendation the Government induced a reasonable belief to its employees that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates and that assurance is nothing short of a promise by conduct and hence rules of estoppels bind the Government. It is an admitted fact that in pursuance of the recommendation of the Commission the Government paid Dearness Allowance up to 104 per cent [92 per cent plus 12 per cent]. 35. So, in view of all the facts, circumstances and the decisions discussed above I am of the view that by accepting the recommendations of the Commission vide Memorandum bearing No.F.4[6]- FIN[PC]/87 dated 18th July, 1988 [Annexure-4] the respondents cannot now take a stand that no right accrued to the petitioner for payment of the balance Dearness Allowance. 35. So, in view of all the facts, circumstances and the decisions discussed above I am of the view that by accepting the recommendations of the Commission vide Memorandum bearing No.F.4[6]- FIN[PC]/87 dated 18th July, 1988 [Annexure-4] the respondents cannot now take a stand that no right accrued to the petitioner for payment of the balance Dearness Allowance. The respondents having failed to do so, it is open to the petitioner to agitate the matter by means of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36. It is true that a additional financial burden would be thrown on the Government. In the additional Affidavit submitted by the respondents it has been stated that the Government of Tripura announced 12 per cent Dearness allowance on 8th of January, 1996 to be effected from 1st of March, 1996 for the State Government Employees and Officers. It has been stated that “this 12% is consisting of two installments amounting to 5% and 7% which was sanctioned by the Central Government from 1.7.1993 and 1.1.1994”. This statement clearly indicates that the Central Government sanctioned the amount sometime back. Annexure-7 document showing payment of Dearness Allowance from stage to stage indicates that up to 1.1.1994 Central Government paid 104 per cent Dearness Allowance to its employees whereas the State Government paid only 60 per cent Dearness Allowance to its employees. After 1.1.1994 the Central Government and the State Government paid Dearness Allowance up to 1.10.1995 as per the following table:- Dated Rate of Dearness Allowance receipt by Central Govt. Employees P.M. [percentage][%] Rate of Dearness Allowance receipt by Tripura Govt. Employees P.M. [Percentage][%] Less receipt of Dearness Allowance by Tripura Govt. Employees P.M. [percentage] [%] 1 2 3 4 1.5.1994 104 71 33 1.7.1994 114 71 43 1.1.1995 125 71 54 1.4.1997 125 83 42 1.7.1995 136 83 53 1.10.1995 136 92 44 By the last declaration dated 8th January, 1996 the State Government also announced for payment of additional Dearness Allowance of 12 per cent to be effected from 1st March, 1996. So, the State Government Employees are entitled to get another 32 per cent of the Dearness Allowance. 37. So, the State Government Employees are entitled to get another 32 per cent of the Dearness Allowance. 37. The respondents have not placed the relevant records to show what amount of money they got from the Central Government under different Heads particularly what was the reply of Central Government for payment of unpaid Dearness Allowance to the State government employees. The admitted position is that the Central government paid 136 per cent till 1.10.1995 and the State Government up to that period paid only 92 per cent Dearness Allowance i.e. 44 per cent less. By the last announcement dated 8th of January, 1996 for payment of additional 12 per cent, the amount comes to 104 per cent i.e. 32 per cent remains unpaid. 38. Considering the additional financial burden on the Government, Mr. Deb has submitted that he will have no objection in case the respondents chose to adjust the Dearness Allowance suitably i.e. if the Dearness Allowance is ordered to be deposited in the general provident Fund recoverable after a few years.” 3. By the said judgment dated 07.02.1996 the respondent-State had been directed to implement the recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission in respect of payment of unpaid dearness allowance viz.32% in three installments. It had been further directed that the first installment of 10% had to be paid within six months from 01.03.1996, the second installment of 11 per cent had to be paid within next six months i.e. within six months starting from 1st September, 1996 and the third installment of 11% had to be paid within six months from 1st March, 1997. The liberty was reserved to the respondent that the said amount might be ordered to be deposited in the General Provident Fund (GPF) of the employees, withdrawal in accordance with rules after expiry of a period of three years from the date of deposit but it was also noted that order would not stand in the way in allowing withdrawal from the GPF earlier. 4. Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner before approaching this court submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura on 10.10.2010 showing that there is an arrear of 21% of DA to be released to the Government employees and others. 4. Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner before approaching this court submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura on 10.10.2010 showing that there is an arrear of 21% of DA to be released to the Government employees and others. The petitioner has prepared a comparative statement of dearness allowance between the Central and State Government employees in percentage, which is available at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. For purpose of reference the said comparative statement is reproduced hereunder: COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCES IN BETWEEN CENTRAL AND STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEES IN PERCENTAGE (%) FOR CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEE FOR STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEE Shortfall of DA for State Govt. Employee (%) Date of DA released with date of effect Amount of DA released in percentage Date of DA released with date of effect Amount of DA released in percentage 13-03-2009 w.e.f. 01-03-2009 22% 05-05-2009 w.e.f 01-01-2009 16% 6% 18-09-2009 w.e.f. 01-01-2009 27% 07-08-2009 w.e.f 01-07-2009 19% 8% 26-01-2010 w.e.f. 01-01-2010 35% 30-01-2010 w.e.f. 01-01-2010 22% 13% 22-019-2010 w.e.f. 01-07- 2009 45% 17-07-2010 w.e.f. 01-07-2010 24% 21% 26-01-2010 w.e.f. 01-01-2011 51% Nil 24% 27% 17-07-2010 w.e.f. 01-07-2011 27% 24% 5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on 01.07.2011 there was shortfall of 24% of DA for the State Government employees and as consequence thereof, they are deprived of a considerable sum every month. An illustration has been made at Annexure-4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that DA is determined on the basis of Consumer Price Index, CPI [base year:1960]. Whenever the CPI takes an upward move, to enable the employees adjust the inflationary effects, the rate of DA is increased. If DA is not released at the rate based on the CPI it affects the purchase capability substantially. The Central Government employees on 01.01.2011 were getting 51% DA and till 01.07.2011 the State Government employees received 27% DA, impounding an arrear of 24%. Mr. Biswas learned counsel has submitted that there cannot be any confusion as to the entitlement, at the Central rate of DA, by the State Government employees. In this context, he has referred a decision of the Council of Ministers taken in the meeting held on 26.12.1998 while considering implementation of the recommendation of the Tripura 4th Pay Commission in respect of the DA. In this context, he has referred a decision of the Council of Ministers taken in the meeting held on 26.12.1998 while considering implementation of the recommendation of the Tripura 4th Pay Commission in respect of the DA. According to the petitioner, the following decision was taken by the said meeting of the Council of Ministers. “8. Dearness Allowance The Dearness Allowance may be released on the pattern of the Government of India depending on availability of fund. At present DA of 8% on the revised scale may be released w.e.f. 1-10-98 and transferred to GPF along with pay and other allowances for all category of employees. The additional DA of 5% may be released w.e.f. 1-1-99 and may be transferred to GPF. At the same time the D.A. already impounded may be permitted to be drawn with effect from 1-2-99.” 6. Thus, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has emphatically contended that the rate of dearness allowance has been accepted ‘on the pattern of the Government of India’, however, depending on the availability of the fund. While closing his submissions, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that by the judgment dated 07.02.1996, the direction which was issued, be deemed to have been obligating the respondent in perpetuity to release the DA at the Central rate within a reasonable period. Since that obligation has not been discharged by the respondent, this court is urged to mandate the respondent by way of interpreting the earlier judgment which, according to the petitioner, carries a mandate in the perpetuity or by a fresh direction. 7. Mr. T. K. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent has at the outset raised a jurisprudential objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition having referred to the relief’s prayed therein. The respondent has denied of existence of mandamus in perpetuity, in the judgment dated 07.02.1996 so as to clear off the arrear of 36% (12+24) DA to reach the Central rate and ‘to continue the parity’. He has further submitted that there cannot be any mandamus or a similar direction to the respondent ’to fulfill its commitments’. The respondent has denied of existence of mandamus in perpetuity, in the judgment dated 07.02.1996 so as to clear off the arrear of 36% (12+24) DA to reach the Central rate and ‘to continue the parity’. He has further submitted that there cannot be any mandamus or a similar direction to the respondent ’to fulfill its commitments’. For purpose of elucidation, the relief as prayed in the writ petition is extracted hereunder: “In the above circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships would be pleased to admit the writ petition and after hearing the Parties issue an appropriate Mandamus or a similar direction to the Respondent to fulfill its commitments and maintain the Mandamus issued by this Hon’ble Court in C.R. 525 of 1995 by clearing the arrear 36% (12+24) to reach the central rate and then to continue the parity.” [Emphasis added] 8. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has tersely submitted that the earlier decision is expressly confined to the implementation of the recommendations of 3rd Pay Commission, which were accepted by the State Government vide the notification under No. F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/87 dated 18.07.1988 and hence the said judgment cannot have any continuing effect beyond the recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission. Having referred to the paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 07.02.1996 it has been contended by Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel that there cannot be any ambiguity inasmuch as mandamus that was sought in the earlier writ petition was for directing the respondent for payment of the unpaid dearness allowances to all its employees. On inviting notice of this court towards the operative part of the judgment [as reproduced above], Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the word ‘commission’ appearing in that part has to relate to 3rd Pay Commission as there could be no arrear under 4th Pay Commission and as a matter of fact the report of 4th Pay Commission was published during pendency of the writ petition and that was never made the subject matter of the earlier writ petition. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has submitted that the direction in the earlier writ petition is confined to payment of 32% of outstanding DA. He has further contended that the petitioner has categorically stated that the respondent has implemented the earlier judgment dated 07.02.1996 scrupulously, complying its terms. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has submitted that the direction in the earlier writ petition is confined to payment of 32% of outstanding DA. He has further contended that the petitioner has categorically stated that the respondent has implemented the earlier judgment dated 07.02.1996 scrupulously, complying its terms. In the paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, where it has been observed that the respondent could not cope up with the periodicity of releasing such dearness allowance at par, as the Central Government released the dearness allowance. To derive support for such contention Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Kesar Devi (Smt) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 427 where it has been enunciated how a judgment is to be interpreted. The relevant part there from is extracted hereunder: “12. The judgment of a court is not to be interpreted like a statute where every word, as far as possible, has to be given a literal meaning and no word is to be ignored. The observations made have to be understood in the context of the facts and contentions raised.” 9. Thus, Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has submitted that the direction given in the earlier writ petition does not obligate the respondent to maintain the parity with the Central rate perpetually or release DA with the same periodicity. That apart, the said judgment has acknowledged the aspect of resource mobilization for releasing such financial benefit and has given a leeway to maintain the periodicity subject to availability of the fund. Thus, even no right to have DA released in the same periodicity vis-a-vis the Central Government employees has been declared in the said judgment. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has seriously raised objection by stating that the writ petitioner has suppressed the policy change that has been brought about by the notification under No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008(Part-1) dated 27.08.2011, Annexure-R/12 to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent which reads as under: “No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008 (Part1) Government of Tripura Finance Department Dated, Agartala, the 27th August, 2011 NOTIFICATION Subject:- Regarding State Policy on release of DA/DR The State Government has been reviewing the financial difficulty arising out of highly unfavorable grant awarded by 13th Finance Commission which has seriously under assessed the state’s requirement for salary, pension and other committed liabilities. The Policy of the State Government in 1998 was that DA would be released on the pattern of Government of India depending upon availability of fund. In other words, only the pattern of Government of India was intended to be followed by the State Government subject to availability of funds. 1 In such circumstances, the Governor is pleased to take a policy decision on DA/DR as follows:- “The government has been and will continue to release DA/DR at a rate and on such periodicity, which will be specified by the State Government from time to time depending on the resource position of the state. This policy decision is in clarification of the previous decision in this regard.” 2 By the order of the Governor Sd/- Illegible Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Tripura” 1. This paragraph denotes the policy pursued before the change in the policy. 2. This paragraph denotes the new policy. 10. Not only that, even the said policy decision has not been called in question by the petitioner and the petitioner even preferred not to file any reply against the counter affidavit. From the order dated 21.03.2012 as referred by Mr. T. K. Roy, learned senior counsel it surfaces that: “considering the fact that the petitioner declined to file any affidavit in reply let a rule issue calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ should not be issued as prayed for and why such further order or other orders should not be passed as to this court may deem fit and proper.” 11. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel did not fail to state that no attempt was made by the petitioner either to file the reply to the counter affidavit or to challenge the policy as declared by the notification dated 27.08.2011. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has referred the notification under No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008 (Part1) dated 06.09.2012 for explaining the State policy of releasing DA/DR. It has been laid thereby that the State Government has been reviewing the financial difficulty arising out of ‘highly un-favorable grant’ granted by 13th Finance Commission which had seriously under-assessed the State’s requirement for salary, pension and other committed liabilities. The policy of the State Government, as declared in 1998, was that DA would be released on the pattern of Government of India depending upon availability of fund. The policy of the State Government, as declared in 1998, was that DA would be released on the pattern of Government of India depending upon availability of fund. In other words, only the patterns of the Government of India would be followed by the State Government subject to availability of funds. Thereafter, the State Government has been releasing DA to its employees as such rates as specified by the State Government from time to time depending on availability of funds. The said notification dated 06.09.2011 has been made in clarification of the notification dated 27.08.2011. The latent purpose of the said notification dated 06.09.2011, Annexure-R/16 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent is to declare that the State Government has been releasing DA to its employees and DR to its retired employees as such rates as specified by the State Government from time to time depending on availability of fund. Even that notification has not been challenged by the petitioner. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has contended that bringing about change in the policy squarely falls within the domain of the executive and the court only can examine its constitutionality when such policy is challenged. Having referred to a decision of the apex court in State of Punjab and others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117 , it has been further contended that ‘the right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances is neither challenged nor could it be’. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel has emphatically contended that by suppression of those notification whereby the new policy has been brought about, the petitioner played foul with the stream of justice. The writ petition is product of manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation of fact. Exercise of this nature is not only alien but has no place in equitable or prerogative jurisdiction. If the petitioner does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and attempts to mislead the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent abuse of its process by discharging the rule nisi or refusing to proceed further for purpose of examination of merit, else the court would be failing in its duty. In this regard he has referred a decision of the apex court in K. D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 where finally it has been held as under: ”51. Yet in another case in Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab (2003) 9 SCC 401 this Court stated: (SCC p. 420, para 24) 24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters is either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence, there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.” 52. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state the facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the writ court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits; we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High Court.” [Emphasis added] 12. This court has come across the recommendation of the Pay Review Committee, 2009. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits; we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High Court.” [Emphasis added] 12. This court has come across the recommendation of the Pay Review Committee, 2009. The Council of Ministers took the decisions [see Para 9 of the counter affidavit] as follows: “DA/DR: In respect of DA/DR the existing policy of the State Government will be followed for release of installments as per revised Central rates over the Band-pay and Grade pay together.” 13. No coherence can be found, with the latent purpose as indicated, in the notification dated 27.08.2011. Further, by the memorandum under No.F.5(4)-FIN(G)/09 dated 05.05.2009 it was declared that the dearness allowance as admissible to the State Government employees would be released w.e.f. 01.01.2009. It has been declared that: “3. Accordingly, Governor is pleased to decide 16% dearness allowance shall be released to the employees appointed in regular scale of pay to services and posts in connection with the State w.e.f. 1st January, 2009. Drawl and disbursement of the released DA shall be regulated under Rule 16(2) of the TSCS Revised Pay Rules, 2009.” 14. Simple reading stands to indicate that 16% DA was sought to be released. Against this memorandum dated 05.05.2009, the petitioner did throw no challenge. 15. Even on meticulous consideration of this perspective, this court is unable to accept the plea of the respondent that the petitioner suppressed the material facts, to cause the misrepresentation inasmuch as the writ petition has been structured for reaffirming mandamus in perpetuity and to release the arrear DA. After interpreting the judgment, this court does not find that by the earlier judgment dated 07.02.1996 any mandamus in perpetuity had been issued for maintaining the parity of the central rate of DA or its periodicity and hence on that ground no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. So far the change of the policy is concerned; this court would not embark on examining its reasonableness inasmuch as there is no challenge against the said policy. It remains with the executive domain to change the policy if it is so warranted with the passage of time. So far the change of the policy is concerned; this court would not embark on examining its reasonableness inasmuch as there is no challenge against the said policy. It remains with the executive domain to change the policy if it is so warranted with the passage of time. For that purpose, difficulty in resource mobilization or making provision of finance apparently has factored in bringing about the change in the policy. In a similar circumstance this court had occasion to observe that: “In effect the order of the division bench is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing direction in the nature of Mandamus in para 26 since that would amount to give a direction to the State as to how to manage its finance. [judgment and order dated 08.08.2013 delivered in C. M. Appl.(WA) No.56 of 2010 arising from WA No.10 of 2000 in the Government Pensioners Association, Tripura vs. State of Tripura] 16. The decision of the Council of Ministers as quoted in the para-9 of the writ petition has not been straightaway admitted by the respondent but they have stated that the said decision has been extracted “from an unsigned confidential memorandum placed before the Council of Ministers”. The respondent has submitted that the PRC had recommended to the Government to consider the release of 16% DA as one time measure. But that release cannot be construed as a general policy decision. No records has been placed before this court to show that the policy of releasing DA at the rate of Central Government employees has been changed earlier before the memorandum dated 27.08.2011 or there had been any policy decision to change the policy as declared by the Council of Ministers by their decision taken on 26.12.1996. It has been admitted that till 31.12.2008 there had been arrear of 16% of DA at the Central Rate and it would be apparent from the PRC report [Chapter-5, Clause 5.2]. It has been admitted that till 31.12.2008 there had been arrear of 16% of DA at the Central Rate and it would be apparent from the PRC report [Chapter-5, Clause 5.2]. There cannot be any amount of dispute however that by the memorandum dated 27.08.2011 the Government communicated the state policy on release of DA/DR laying that DA/DR will be released ‘at a rate and on such periodicity which will be specified by the State Government from time to time depending on the resource position of the State.’ In the counter affidavit, the state has fairly accepted by means of the decision taken in the meeting of Council of Ministers on 03.09.2011 that: “While the rates declared by Central Government have always been kept in view, the State Government has been and will continue to release DA/DR at a rate and on such periodicity, which will be specified by the State Government from time to time depending on the resource position of the state. This policy decision is in clarification of the previous decision in this regard.” 17. As such, it can be gathered there from without much pain that the State Government is still following the Central rate of DA but not as binding. In the counter affidavit nowhere the respondent has stated that what method they have been following now in determining the rate of DA. In this backdrop this court is of the opinion that the State Government employees are entitled DA at the Central rate till an appropriate method is adopted by the State Government. Since there has been no policy change before the notification dated 27.08.2011 the State Government is under obligation to release the DA/DR at the Central rate in the same manner as it has been recommended by the PRC for release of 16% arrear DA on the basis of the Central rate. The release at a time may be a onetime measure but there had been no controversy as regards the rate. Hence, the respondent is directed to calculate DA at the rate of the Central Government till 27.08.2011 and release the arrear DA by three installments, one each on expiry of every six months commencing from 01.07.2016. The State Government may, for purpose of over-coming difficulty credit a part only of the arrear of DA in the GPF of the concerned employee declaring moratorium for a maximum period of three years. The State Government may, for purpose of over-coming difficulty credit a part only of the arrear of DA in the GPF of the concerned employee declaring moratorium for a maximum period of three years. 18. As regards the law, this court is not oblivious that in State of Madhya Pradesh versus G. C. Mandawar reported in AIR 1954 SC 493 , a constitutional bench of the apex court had observed that: “................ it is a matter of discretion with the local Government whether it will grant dearness allowance and if so, how much. That being so, the prayer for mandamus is clearly misconceived, as that could be granted only when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules confers no right on the Government servants to the grant of dearness allowance; it imposes no duty on the State to grant it. It merely confers a power on the State of grant compassionate allowance as its own discretion, and no mandamus can issue to compel the exercise of such a power. Nor, indeed, could any other writ or direction be issued in respect of it, as there is no right in the applicant which is capable of being protected or enforced.” But when by operation of the policy, entitlement of DA becomes due, it becomes debt in nature and it has been held by the apex court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus G. C. Mandawar that unlike England, in our country such ‘debt’ due to be discharged by the Government could be attached. When the State cannot be compelled by mandamus to grant DA/DR but when entitlement accrues by way of the policy and the same is not paid, mandamus can be issued. While issuing such mandamus the court may take a pragmatic approach. For certainty of the rate, entitlement of the State Government employees cannot be denied by the respondent. Even there cannot be any amount of debate that this financial relief [DA/DR] is granted to the employees or the pensioners to adjust the inflationary effects or to preserve actual wage value. Its impounding for uncertain and unlimited period cannot be terms as fair labor practice. With this observation and direction this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to the costs.