JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. All these writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 8th January, 2018, passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1395 of 2016, titled as B. S. Himalvi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and other connected matters. As common question of law and similar facts are involved in all these writ petitions, accordingly with the consent of parties, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Respondents before this Court are former employees of the petitioner-Corporations, who approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the fact that after their superannuation, though pension was being paid to them, however, Dearness Relief on the same stood denied. Learned Tribunal relying upon the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, allowed the claim of the respondents holding that they were entitled for the grant of Dearness Relief upon pension. Feeling aggrieved, the employer-Corporations have assailed the order passed by the learned Tribunal by way of present petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the order passed by learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law, as learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the respondents were not entitled for Dearness Relief, as same is not payable upon pension. Their further contention is that it is for the employer to decide as to whether Dearness Relief is to be given to a retired employee and this prerogative of the employer has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the cases. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Tribunal and as the respondents are entitled to Dearness Relief alongwith pension, said relief has been rightly granted in their favour by the learned Tribunal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. In our considered view, there is inherent contradiction in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records as well as the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. In our considered view, there is inherent contradiction in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the right to receive pension of the respondents is governed by the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1999 Pension Scheme’). Sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 of this Scheme provides as under:- “...(2) All pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating H.P. Corporate Sector shall be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended and adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State Government employees save as otherwise provided in this Scheme.” 7. ‘Pension’ is defined under Clause (o) of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as:- “(o) [‘Pension’ includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not incude dearness relief].” 8. Similarly, ‘Dearness Relief’ is defined in Rule 55-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the same reads as under:- “55-A. Dearness Relief on Pension/Family Pension. (i) Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time.” 9. The abovementioned Rule position itself explicitly demonstrates that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Dearness Relief is not payable to a person, who is otherwise entitled for the grant of pension, is incorrect. 10. In our considered view, a harmonious reading of the definitions of ‘Pension’ as also ‘Dearness Relief’ clearly and categorically leads to one and only one conclusion that though pension does not include Dearness Relief, yet Dearness Relief is an integral part of the pensionary benefits, more so, in the present case, in view of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 of the 1999 Scheme already quoted above. 11. 11. The 1999 Pension Scheme itself envisages that all pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating H.P. Corporate Sector shall be determined as per the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended and adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State Government employees, save as otherwise provided in the Scheme. 12. It is not the case of the petitioners that the benefit of Dearness Relief upon pension has not been adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State Government employees or that the same stands excluded under the provisions of the 1999 Pension Scheme. Once the respondents have been found entitled for the grant of pension under the 1999 Pension Scheme, Dearness Relief, by no stretch of imagination, can be denied to them either on the pretext that the Dearness Relief is not payable upon pension or on the ground that whether or not Dearness Relief is to be granted, is the discretion of the employer. 13. It is settled law that the pension payable to an employee is determined as per the Pension Rules which govern the field as on the date when the concerned employee superannuates. In the present case, as on the date when the respondents superannuated between 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004, the 1999 Pension Scheme was in force. This Scheme envisaged grant of pensionary benefits to the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. That being the case, as grant of Dearness Relief is provided for upon pension by the 1972 Rules, denial of the same by the petitioners to the respondents was clearly an arbitrary act and the same has been rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal by holding that the respondents are entitled for the grant of Dearness Relief upon pension. 14. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that pension is a right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, but is governed by the Rules and an employee coming within those Rules is entitled to pension {See State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma, (2015) 9 SCC 540 }. 15. Accordingly, as this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.