JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The grant of Family and Political Pensions are covered by the various Standing Orders on "Family and Political Pensions, Malikhanas, Jenmibhogam, Karathilchilavu and Arthapalinal Boriz deductions and Tasdio Allowances." The regime of paying such pension began as early as in the year 1949 and has been continuing, under which, the members of certain erstwhile royal families in Kerala are being paid pension during their life time. This is to say that the pension payable to the members of royal families would cease when they expire and it has no heritable right. The benefit is thus confined to those members of the families, who were alive at the time when these pensions were awarded and granted. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition are members of different royal families in the erstwhile State of Travancore. They were being paid family and political pension at the rate of Rs. 600/- until Ext.P7 was issued enhancing it to Rs. 1,000/- per month. The order in question, namely, Ext.P7 records that all members of such royal families, whose pension until then was Rs. 600/- or below, would be granted enhancement to Rs. 1,000/- per month. 3. However, pertinently, even before the issuance of Ext.P7, the Government of Kerala had issued another order specifically for the members of the royal family of Njavakkattu Meenachil, Kottayam District, enhancing their pension from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month with retrospective effect from 01.01.2011. The petitioners, being obviously chagrined at the discrimination meted out to them, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos.30527/2012 and 3274/2013, which were disposed of jointly by this Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. The said judgment dealt with these issues quite in detail and I, therefore, deem it fructiferous to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment as under:- "The royal families included in Ext.P1 list are now receiving family and political pension. The original monthly pension was Rs. 9.81/- only, which was subsequently enhanced into Rs. 300/-, later Rs. 600/- and presently, Rs. 1,000/-. This was on the basis of the orders periodically issued by the Government as could be seen from Exts.P3, P5 and P6. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the case of families in Vaikom area and Meenachil area, enhancement is given as per Exts.P7 and P10. 300/-, later Rs. 600/- and presently, Rs. 1,000/-. This was on the basis of the orders periodically issued by the Government as could be seen from Exts.P3, P5 and P6. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the case of families in Vaikom area and Meenachil area, enhancement is given as per Exts.P7 and P10. However, such an enhancement was not given to the members of the petitioners' family. It is in this context, the petitioners have come up before this Court. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, they have taken the contention that the quantum of pension allowed to the members of the erstwhile royal families is directly proportional to the extent of land surrendered by those families. The respondent State has also a case that the members of the petitioners' family are more in number and; therefore, the financial burden that would be caused on the Government on account of enhancement would be higher. Arguments have been heard. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Ext.P12, by which family pension at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- was granted to the members of the family of the Samoothiri, Kozhikodu. The said order would reveal that the aforesaid family is having 826 members at the time of issuing the order. It is evident from the materials now placed on board that no uniform stand is adopted by the Government in granting pension to the members of the erstwhile royal families. Therefore, the matter requires a re-look by the Government. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the first respondent Government with a proper representation within a period of one month from today claiming the benefit under Ext.P10." 4. In ostensible obedience to the directions as above, the Government issued Ext.P15 order. However, in Ext.P15, contrary to the obvious expression of mind by this Court, the Government rejected the petitioners' claim holding that since it had only been one year after the pension was increased from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1000/- under Ext.P7 order and because of the financial constraints of the Government, the enhancement of political pension to a uniform rate for all the members of the royal families in Kerala was not possible. 600/- to Rs. 1000/- under Ext.P7 order and because of the financial constraints of the Government, the enhancement of political pension to a uniform rate for all the members of the royal families in Kerala was not possible. The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P15 on various grounds but primarily that it has been issued without considering the specific directions and observations contained in Ext.P11 judgment. 5. I have heard Sri. K.Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. Kurian.P.P., appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. I notice that when the Government issued Ext.P15 order, which is impugned in this writ petition, the petitioners had preferred a Contempt of Court Case alleged that the same is not in compliance with the directions in Ext.P11 judgment. This case was disposed of by the learned single Judge by Ext.P17 judgment. 7. It is obvious from Ext.P17 judgment that the learned single Judge has recorded that even though there were directions in Ext.P11 to consider the case of the petitioners' favourably, it has not been done. However, the learned single Judge deemed it appropriate that the petitioners challenge Ext.P15 order before this Court which is the better method to be followed to assail orders, which are issued in ostensible compliance of court direction, albeit incorrectly. 8. I have examined Ext.P15 order issued by the Government. Even on an exfacie examination of the same without any close scrutiny, it would make it obvious and totally discernible that what the Government has done is merely to say that the petitioners would not be entitled to an enhancement on account of Ext.P7 order. This is completely unjustifiable, unreasonable and totally contrary to propriety to say the least. I am vehement here because Ext.P11 judgment was issued noticing Ext.P7 order and directing that the petitioners be given the same benefits or be treated equally as has been done in the case of members of other royal families mentioned in Ext.P8. The Government, however, very casually states that since Ext.P7 had given them some escalation, they would not be entitled to any further. This is completely unacceptable since I see that Ext.P11 judgment also weighs in all the factors stated by the Government against such escalation. 9. The Government, however, very casually states that since Ext.P7 had given them some escalation, they would not be entitled to any further. This is completely unacceptable since I see that Ext.P11 judgment also weighs in all the factors stated by the Government against such escalation. 9. In the counter affidavit filed in this case, the Government restates the same reasons as was given earlier by them against such escalation. They say that different royal families were given different treatment based on the amount of land surrendered by them. There is absolutely no material to justify this assertion and in any event, in Ext.P11 judgment, this Court has already declared that no uniform stand was adopted by the Government, relating to surrender of land, in granting pension to the members of the royal families, contrary to their assertions. It is specifically, therefore, that this Court had directed the Authorities to have a re-look. This not having been done, I cannot condone the cliched stand of the respondents that pension is granted based on the land surrendered by these erstwhile families. I cannot accept this nor will I permit the respondents to keep restating what has been stated earlier even though it has been negative and further directions having been issued in Ext.P11 judgment. 10. The only other reason, shown in Ext.P15, against the petitioners' claim is that the Government will be put to financial constraints if all the members are given a uniform rate. I am afraid this is a submission which is extremely jejune and banal and which seems to be used by the Government against every claim involving financial expenditure. I have to notice that the number of the eligible members of the royal families are constantly decreasing. It does not increase by the year, but it actually decreases and the burden of the State consequently attenuates, since the pensions are entitled only to those members of the royal family as on a particular cut off date. I am told that pending this writ petition itself, several of the petitioners have died and that therefore, their families would not be entitled to any further pension. 11. In such view of the matter, I fail to understand how the Government could say that the escalation in pension is denied on account of financial burden. I am told that pending this writ petition itself, several of the petitioners have died and that therefore, their families would not be entitled to any further pension. 11. In such view of the matter, I fail to understand how the Government could say that the escalation in pension is denied on account of financial burden. In any event, this is not a ground that could be taken by the Government validly in response to such claims which are founded on factors of equality and fair treatment. 12. At this point of time, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Government is, in fact, in the process of making a consideration as to a uniform rate of pension to be paid to all eligible members of the erstwhile royal families in Kerala. I commend this and I am of the view that it is high time that the Government took a view in this manner in its right perspective and it gratifying that the Government, at least now, has deemed it appropriate to take a comprehensive view as to the rates of pension to be paid across the eligible members of the royal family without discrimination. 13. In such view of the matter and in view of the submission now made before me, I deem it apposite that I dispose of this writ petition, directing the competent Authorities under the Government to have a comprehensive view relating to the claims of all the eligible members of erstwhile royal families in Kerala and to fix a uniform rate of pension to be paid to them under the Family and Political Pension Scheme, without any discrimination and in compliance of equity and fair treatment. 14. To pave way for such an exercise, I set aside Ext.P15 order since it is indubitably issued contrary to the directions in Ext.P11 judgment. 15. Since many of the claimants are now in advanced years of their life, it is idoneous and desirable that the competent Authorities of the Government of Kerala consider these issues and pass appropriate orders granting an equal scale of pension payable to all the eligible members of erstwhile royal families in Kerala, as expeditiously as possible but surely not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is thus ordered. This writ petition is thus ordered. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.