JUDGMENT : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. These Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants/respondents, challenging the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)Nos.14460 to 14462 of 2018, directing them to pay the writ petitioners/respondents monthly old age pension from the month of January, 2018 and continue to pay the same till the lifetime of the writ petitioners. 2. This is a classic case of the Government, where, even without enquiry or even without necessary documents, sanctioned with the old age monthly pension to the writ petitioners/respondents under Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAS) and payment was made for the writ petitioners/respondents from the year 2012 and 2011 respectively. Suddenly, from the month of January, 2018, the second appellant/second respondent had discontinued the payment of old age pension, without assigning any reason or even without issuing any show-cause notice for conducting an enquiry. Aggrieved over the order passed by the second respondent, the respondents/writ petitioners were forced to rush before this Court by filing the Writ Petitions. 3. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.07.2018, allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the first respondent to suitably instruct the second respondent/second appellant to pay the writ petitioners/respondents monthly old age pension from the month of January, 2018 and continue to pay the same till the lifetime of the writ petitioners/respondents. 4. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants/respondents have preferred the present Writ Appeals. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents contended that the respondents/writ petitioners are persons with means, as they have children, who are capable of earning income. Therefore, they would not be entitled for receiving the old age monthly pension scheme. 6. Admittedly, the respondents/writ petitioners are destitute persons, who do not have adequate means of income to support themselves. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents and perused the materials available on record. 8. The enquiry reports of the Revenue Inspector, dated 11.10.2017 states that the respondents/writ petitioners owned houses and they are living in comfortable circumstances. Even then, the enquiry reports does not state to whom the said land or building belonged to and whether they are capable of fetching income from the same etc. Further, it is stated that their sons are employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation as drivers. Even then, the enquiry reports does not state to whom the said land or building belonged to and whether they are capable of fetching income from the same etc. Further, it is stated that their sons are employed in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation as drivers. Based on the same, the old age monthly pension issued to the respondents/writ petitioners were stopped. 9. As stated earlier, no evidence has been filed before this Court to substantiate the same. When the appellants/respondents stopped the pension all of a sudden, after setting up the legitimate expectations in the minds of the recipients, it is now stated that there was an enquiry and the respondents/writ petitioners were leading a better life and the blame is shifted on the respondents/writ petitioners themselves, when the appellants/respondents, who are duty bound to consider these aspects before sanctioning the old age pension had not done so. 10. Having failed to do so, it is deemed that the appellants/respondents had sanctioned the pension itself, after due enquiry and after verifying the income certificate, issued by the appellants/respondents themselves. Therefore, it is not for the appellants/respondents to take advantage of the same and recall the pension granted. The public servants, particularly officers of the Government have to answer for the inconvenience, trauma and loss caused to the writ petitioners/respondents due to their irresponsible and malafide action. In fact, aggrieved persons can seek damages for all the physical, mental, social and financial loss and sufferings caused to them. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are of the considered view that the same has to be confirmed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.