JUDGMENT : V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. The subsisting grievance of the appellant is as regards the non-disbursement of pay revision arrears since other retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. have been received pursuant to the Writ Petition. The relief on that count was declined solely for the reason that the arrears is for the period from 1.7.1991 to 17.7.1998 and the claim, made years after is belated. It should be borne in mind that the object behind the periodic revision of the pay scale is to ensure a decent standard of living which emanates from Art.43 of the Constitution of India. It reads: “43. Living wage, etc., for workers.– The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.” It will be apt to quote from the judgment in Mahatma Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (2017 (1) KLT SN 68 (C.No.75) (SC)) authored by Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar as regards the relevance of pay revision: “The object sought to be achieved by the periodic revision of the pay-scales is obviously to comply with the constitutional mandate emanating from Article 43 of the Constitution of India.” Article 43 is part of the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which together with the ‘Fundamental Rights’ form the core of the Constitution as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ( (1973) 4 SCC 225 ). 2. The decision in State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh ( (2006) 12 SCC 709 ) is distinguishable since the same dealt with the right to seek fixation of pay which was held to be barred by limitation after three years. The entitlement of the appellant for the revised pay is not seriously in dispute and the main contention of the Co-operative Bank is that it was implemented much later. The mere fact that the Co- operative Bank thought it fit to postpone the disbursement of the pay revision arrears in implementation does not affect the entitlement thereof. The entitlement of the appellant for the revised pay is not seriously in dispute and the main contention of the Co-operative Bank is that it was implemented much later. The mere fact that the Co- operative Bank thought it fit to postpone the disbursement of the pay revision arrears in implementation does not affect the entitlement thereof. The pay revision orders issued by the Government itself enables the Registrar to grant time for effecting payment depending on the financial position of the Co-operative Bank. It should be stated that the obligation is on the Co-operative Bank (which is the employer) to disburse the salary promptly even without waiting for the employee to make a demand. The total salary includes the pre-revised and revised pay and the admitted disbursement of a portion to the appellant during the period in question saves limitation even if there is any. 3. The competent among the respondents shall disburse the pay revision arrears due to the appellant within a period of three months from today and the impugned judgment to that extent stands modified. The Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.