JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri N. Bipin, Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Shri K.R. Pamei, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the letter dated 01-02-2012 issued by the Office of the Accountant General, Manipur and also for directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner as Arts Graduate Teachers. 3.1 According to the petitioner, she was appointed as teacher vide order dated 17-12-1979 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur w.e.f. 01-11-1979 and was posted at Gokul Jr. High School. After having served for some years at Gokul Jr. High School, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Lalambung Primary School as Assistant Undergraduate Teacher. 3.2 Pursuant to the approval dated 09-01-1990 granted by State Government for up-gradation/promotion of Undergraduate Teachers in Government Schools, the petitioner’s service as Undergraduate Teacher was also upgraded/promoted to the post of Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 15-12-1987 vide order dated 07-09-1992 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and accordingly, the petitioner was paid the pay and allowances attached to the post of Graduate Teacher. 3.3 The petitioner retired from service as Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 31-08-2010 on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 14-09-2010 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and all the necessary papers have been submitted by her to the competent authorities for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. In spite of all necessary papers being submitted for grant of pension and pensionary benefits, no pension was sanctioned by the Office of the Accountant General, Manipur and on enquiry being made by the petitioner, it was found that a letter dated 01-02-2012 was addressed to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur by the Office of the Accountant General stating therein that the pension case of the petitioner could not be settled as some clarifications/documents were required to be furnished by the State Government. It appears that the reason for not settling the pension case of the petitioner was that the order dated 07-09-1992 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur without prior concurrence of the Finance Department. It appears that the reason for not settling the pension case of the petitioner was that the order dated 07-09-1992 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur without prior concurrence of the Finance Department. Since the pension case of the petitioner was not settled for long time, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15-12-2014 to the Secretary, Education for allowing her to enjoy the monthly pension as Graduate Teacher and the fact that the same is still pending for disposal by the respondents has led to the instant writ petition being filed by the petitioner mainly on two grounds that the petitioner was denied pension when all Graduate Teachers, similarly situated, were given pension and that for the mistake committed by the State Government, the petitioner could not be deprived of her right to pension. 4. The instant writ petition is not contested at all by the State respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition despite number of opportunities being granted to them for that purpose by this court. However, to contest the instant writ petition, the respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the Office of the Accountant General, Manipur is a field office where the concerned Accountant General performs his/her duties within the parameters laid down by the C & AG of Government of India which are in consonance with the Constitution read with the DPC Act, 1971; that the Accountant General does not have administrative power over the affairs of the concerned State Government except giving advice to it on the issues having technical snag at the time of implementation and that the relevant papers pertaining to the petitioners were received in the Office of the Accountant General on 20-10-2011 and after having checked the same, it was seen that there had been technical irregularities about her up-gradation to the post of Graduate Teacher for the reason that the petitioner was allowed to enjoy the Graduate pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- w.e.f. 15-12-1987 which was contrary to the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 10-10-2005 which provide that all cases of grant of Promotion/Pay Revision and creation of post with retrospective effect without obtaining prior concurrence of the Finance Department were irregular and void ab initio in all respects. 1400-2300/- w.e.f. 15-12-1987 which was contrary to the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 10-10-2005 which provide that all cases of grant of Promotion/Pay Revision and creation of post with retrospective effect without obtaining prior concurrence of the Finance Department were irregular and void ab initio in all respects. Accordingly, the Office of the Accountant General, Manipur addressed a letter dated 01-02-2012 to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur seeking certain clarification on the issue and for want of reply/decision from the State Government, nothing could be done by it and there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the respondent No. 4. 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”. 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. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service as Arts Graduate Teacher vide order dated 14-09-2010 issued by the Director of Education (School), Government of Manipur and as has been stated herein above, the instant writ petition is also not contested by the State respondents nor have they contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pension under the relevant rules. Therefore, so far as the State respondents are concerned, the averments made in the petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by them in view of the various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard and the consequence that ought to follow, is that the writ petition will have to be allowed by this court on this count alone. 6. As regards the respondent No. 4, it has filed an affidavit-in-opposition and on perusal of it, it is seen that it has not taken a categorical stand that the petitioner is not entitled to pension at all. All that it has submitted is that while examining the relevant papers pertaining to the petitioner, it was seen that the petitioner was allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Graduate Teacher with effect from 15-12-1987 vide order dated 07-09-1992 without prior concurrence of the Finance Department and it was contrary to the instructions contained in the OM dated 10-10-2005 issued by the Finance Department (PIC), Government of Manipur. Accordingly, it has written a letter dated 01-02-2012, impugned herein, seeking clarifications from the State Government and for want of clarifications from the State Government, it could not finalise the petitioner’s pension case. It is nothing but a correspondence between the Office of the Accountant General and the State Government and it has not taken away the right of the petitioner to receive and enjoy pension. It is nothing but a correspondence between the Office of the Accountant General and the State Government and it has not taken away the right of the petitioner to receive and enjoy pension. Therefore, one of the prayers in the writ petition that the said letter dated 01-02-2012 be quashed, is unreasonable and cannot be granted to the petitioner. One thing that can be noted at this juncture is that at the time of issuing the order dated 07-09-1992 by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur granting graduate scale of pay to the petitioner, the said OM dated 10-10-2005 was not in existence. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the State Government has committed a mistake while granting graduate scale of pay to the petitioner without prior concurrence from the Finance Department, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be blamed for it. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although pension has been denied to the petitioner, the same has been given to other teachers who are similarly situated with the petitioner and therefore, the action of the State Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As has been stated herein above, this contention has also not been controverted by the State Government. The State Government being an institution, is expected to act fairly and reasonably and since the problem is created by the State Government, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to solve it with a view to ensure that pension is given to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has already retired as back as in the year, 2010. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and consequently, the respondents are directed to pay pension to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. It is made clear that in the event of the pension not being paid to the petitioner within the said period of six months, the arrears of pension will carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of six months till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.