JUDGMENT : V. Shircy, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No. 38297/2016 are in appeal. The challenge is against the judgment dated 13.2.2017 directing them to pay the Ad hoc Bonus/Festival Allowance due to the first respondent/petitioner within a period of two months of receipt of the copy of the Judgment. 2. The first respondent/petitioner is working as a Full Time Menial under the second respondent. Though he was appointed on 5.11.2002, his appointment was approved only on 22.6.2007 with effect from 28.3.2003 in the available promotion vacancy. Subsequent to the approval of his appointment, he claimed Ad hoc Bonus, but the same was rejected by the appellants as per Ext. P5 stating that the claim was not raised by him within the prescribed time frame. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed by the judgment under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the claim of the first respondent was rejected as it was beyond the time limit prescribed by Circular No. 19/05/Fin dated 22.4.2005. It is further contended that the said Circular has not been challenged by the first respondent. As per the Circular, Ad hoc Bonus/Festival Allowance will stand forfeited altogether after the lapse of five years. So if the claim relates to the period prior to five years, the employee is not entitled to claim the benefit. The further contention is that Ad hoc Bonus/Festival Allowance is not a statutory right like pay and allowance, therefore the order under challenge is only to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that he could not apply for Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus for no fault of his, but was only due to the delay in approving his appointment. As his appointment was approved only on 22.6.2007, his claim is within the period prescribed and hence he is entitled for the same. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 6. The first respondent was appointed as Full Time Menial in the second respondent's school on 1.11.2002. His appointment was approved as per Ext. P1 order of the Government on 22.6.2007 with effect from 18.3.2003 in the promotion vacancy of one Sheelamma Baby. He submitted several applications claiming Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus but all his requests were rejected. 6. The first respondent was appointed as Full Time Menial in the second respondent's school on 1.11.2002. His appointment was approved as per Ext. P1 order of the Government on 22.6.2007 with effect from 18.3.2003 in the promotion vacancy of one Sheelamma Baby. He submitted several applications claiming Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus but all his requests were rejected. At last, he submitted an application before the Chief Minister. Then by Ext. P2 dated 2.12.2011 he was informed that Special Government Order was required to allow his claim. Thereafter he submitted Ext. P3 pointing out that a similarly situated employee was given favourable orders and so he was also entitled to an equal treatment. But by Ext. P5 it was informed that the claim cannot be considered as the time limit prescribed for claiming arrears of festival Allowance had elapsed as per Circular No. 19/2005/Fin dated 22.4.2005 of the Government. Annexure-A is the Circular which reads as follows: "It has came to the notice of Government that the Ad hoc Bonus/Special Festival Allowance declared by Government every year is being claimed by the employees even after the due date of drawal, citing various reasons. The last date for claiming the benefit has been fixed as March 31st of every financial year in which the Ad hoc Bonus/Special Festival Allowance is sanctioned. The Ad hoc Bonus/Special Festival Allowance does not come under the purview of the Bonus Act or the Industrial Dispute Act. So, it is not a statutory entitlement like pay & allowances. Special sanction is accorded for payment of Ad hoc Bonus/Special festival Allowance on merit in relaxation of the time limit in some cases. This has led to a situation in which special sanction is sought for claims of Special Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus pertaining to periods decades ago. Some such instances have come to notice recently. 2. Government hereby wish to clarify that Ad hoc Bonus/Special Festival allowance will stand forfeited altogether after 5 years have elapsed, as in the case of claims for pay and allowance as provided in article 56(b) of KFC Volume I. Special Sanction for drawing Ad hoc Bonus/Special Festival allowance will not be given if the claim relates to a period prior to 5 years, even if the reasons are non approval of posts in aided schools, etc." 7. The claim of the first respondent was rejected by the Government relying on this Circular dated 22.4.2015. Here it is pertinent to note that the appointment of the first respondent was approved only on 22.6.2007 as per Ext. P1 order. Thereafter, he submitted a complaint on 27.11.2011 before the Government in the Special Programme conducted by the Chief Minister throughout the State as all his earlier representations were rejected. This complaint was forwarded to the appellants and thereafter as per Ext. P5, he was informed that he was not entitled for claiming Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus for the period claimed by him. In our opinion his claim was in conformity with the Circular as it was within the period of five years since the date of the approval of his appointment was on 22.06.2007. As the claim was raised within a period of five years of approval of his appointment, the finding of the learned Single Judge that his claim was not beyond the time limit prescribed is absolutely correct and hence does not warrant an interference. The next contention of the appellants that the first respondent failed to challenge the Circular and hence his claim cannot be accepted is also without merits. It is not necessary to seek an order to strike down the Circular on the ground that the first respondent thinks that it is unjustified. 8. It is doubtless that the materials on record indicate that appellants have rejected the valid claim of the first respondent merely on technicalities. It is also relevant to note that the application made by him before the Chief Minister in the year 2011 was forwarded and finally it was rejected in the year 2013. It is well settled that a State cannot take a defence merely on technicalities to avoid or reject a valid/just claim. 9. In P.P. Aboobacker v. Union of India ( AIR 1972 Ker. 103 ), a learned Single Judge of this Court (V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.) has observed as follows: "The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. 9. In P.P. Aboobacker v. Union of India ( AIR 1972 Ker. 103 ), a learned Single Judge of this Court (V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.) has observed as follows: "The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity." The said principle was adopted by the Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India and Others ( AIR 1974 SC 130 ) and observed as follows: "It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from certain observations I had made in the Kerala High court decision P.P. Abu backer v. The Union of India." 10. Of course Bonus is not salary or pay as contended by the appellants but it is a premium paid in addition to what is due or expected to an employee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the entitlement of the first respondent for Ad Hoc Bonus cannot be rejected on the ground that it was claimed after the time limit prescribed by the Circular. Here it is also significant to note that Ext. P4 would reveal that a similar claim raised by another employee was favourably considered by the Government and Festival Allowance/Ad hoc Bonus was granted to him. We are indeed sorry to note that a similar treatment was not afforded to him. He was unnecessarily dragged to this Court. It is also to be noted that normally the Festival Allowance/Bonus will only be a meagre amount as far as the Government is concerned. It is unfortunate that still the appellants preferred this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. He was unnecessarily dragged to this Court. It is also to be noted that normally the Festival Allowance/Bonus will only be a meagre amount as far as the Government is concerned. It is unfortunate that still the appellants preferred this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Though we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to impose costs to the appellants/State, we are not doing so. 11. To sum up, considering the entire facts involved in the matter in dispute, we find that this appeal filed by the appellants is only to be dismissed. The appellants are directed to disburse the amount due to the first respondent as Ad hoc Bonus/Festival Allowance at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.