ORDER : 1. A Public Interest Litigation was moved before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a former District and Sessions Judge complaining of the non-payment of salaries, honoraria and pensions by the State government to its employees, following the onset of the pandemic in March 2020. A Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 11 August 2020, issued a mandamus to the State government to pay the deferred portion of the salaries and pensions within a period of two months, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal before this Court. 2. The State government has submitted that its tax and non-tax revenues showed a precipitous decline of 52%, i.e., Rs 7,593 crores for the first quarter of 2020-21 as compared to 2019-20. Moreover, it has been stated that receipts were in the amount of Rs 7,089 crores as against Rs 14,682 crores for 2019-20. Besides, the above figures, the High Court also noticed that the “State’s own revenues have not shown any appreciable improvement in the month of July 2020 also as the decline is to an extent of 49% amounting to Rs 2,129 crores for the first 20 days of the month of July 2020 as compared to 2019-20. The receipts were only Rs 2,253 crores as against Rs 4,382 crores for the first 20 days of the month of July 2019”. 3. The State government initially issued GOMs 26 of 2020 on 31 March 2020 providing for a deferment of salaries in the following terms: “(i) There shall be (100%) deferment in respect of Hon’ble CM/Hon’ble Ministers/Hon’ble MLAs/Hon’ble MLCs, Chairperson & Members of all Corporations, elected representatives of all Local Bodies & people holding equivalent posts, as per the orders issued from time to time. (ii) There shall be (60%) deferment in respect of All India Service Officers viz. IAS, IPS and IFS. (iii) There shall be (50%) deferment in respect of all other Government employees, including work-charged employees & persons engaged under the category of direct individuals professions and through 3rd party, except Class-IV employees.” 4. (ii) There shall be (60%) deferment in respect of All India Service Officers viz. IAS, IPS and IFS. (iii) There shall be (50%) deferment in respect of all other Government employees, including work-charged employees & persons engaged under the category of direct individuals professions and through 3rd party, except Class-IV employees.” 4. GOMs 27 of 2020 was issued on 4 April 2020 partially modifying the earlier GO by directing the full payment of salaries to employees belonging to the Medical and Health Department, Police Department and sanitation workers working in Rural Local Bodies/ Urban Local Bodies, such as Nagar Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. 5. On 26 April 2020, the State government issued GOMs 37 of 2020 modifying the GO dated 31 March 2020 to provide for full payment of salaries to the pensioners. On 22 May 2020, GOMs 44 of 2020 was issued by which the earlier orders regarding deferment of salaries were rescinded and a direction was issued for the payment of salaries to all employees from the month of May in full. 6. The High Court, by its judgment dated 11 August 2020, came to the conclusion that the action of the State government to defer the payment of salaries was without the authority of law. The High Court came to the conclusion that the payment of earned salary and pensions is a matter of entitlement for government servants and former employees and in the absence of the authority of law, it was not open for the State to take the action for deferment. In these circumstances, a direction was issued for the payment of the deferred portion of the salary within two months with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 7. Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned counsel, submitted that the State government was constrained to take the above decision for deferment as a result of the precarious financial position which emerged due to the pandemic. It has been submitted that immediately thereafter in the month of May 2020, a decision was taken to restore the portion which had been withheld and the State government is in the process of paying the outstanding dues. Mr Naphade submitted that the State government would do so by 31 March 2021. 8. It has been submitted that immediately thereafter in the month of May 2020, a decision was taken to restore the portion which had been withheld and the State government is in the process of paying the outstanding dues. Mr Naphade submitted that the State government would do so by 31 March 2021. 8. The submission before the Court is also that two unions representing the employees with a strength of over 20,000 members had filed impleadment applications before the High Court, which were, however, not entertained. It has been submitted that when the large body of employees has been cognizant of the difficulties faced by the State and they have made no grievance, the High Court has erred in entertaining a PIL filed at the behest of a former District and Sessions Judge and in issuing directions for payment, particularly of interest at a disproportionately high rate of 12%. Mr Naphade urged that the PIL is motivated and is not a genuine attempt to protect the interests of the employees. Mr Naphade urged that the State government does not deny its obligation to pay the deferred dues and hence the Special Leave Petition is confined to the order for interest. However, some reasonable time would be required. 9. On the other hand, Mr Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on caveat for the respondent, submits: (i) The State government had ample authority under the provisions of the Constitution to enact a law or even promulgate an Ordinance providing for the deferment of salaries, but instead it had chosen to carry out the exercise by taking recourse to its executive power; (ii) The award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum by the High Court must be construed as just compensation to the employees who have been deprived of at least a portion of their salaries and pensions for the months of March and April 2020; and (iii) The personal obligations of the government employees did not cease as a result of the pandemic and the employees have still to undertake expenses for school, medical and other household requirements. In this view of the matter, it was submitted that the judgment of the High Court must be understood in the context of the anguish of the Constitutional Court with the government having not taken recourse to its power to enact suitable legislation to take care of the exigencies occasioned by the pandemic. 10. Responding to the above submissions, Mr Naphade urged that Article 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Financial Code, which has been relied upon in the judgment of the High Court, does not have any statutory force. At the same time, it has been submitted that it is not the contention of the government that it is not obligated to pay the salary and pensionary dues and a deferment was sought so as to enable the government to meet its obligations consistent with its financial position. 11. The entitlement of government employees to the payment of salaries and pensions is not in dispute as it cannot be. Salaries are payable to government employees for the work which is done and each of the employees is, therefore, entitled to a legitimate expectation in accordance with law that the government would pay the outstanding dues. Similar is the case with pensionary benefits and it requires no elaborate reasoning to follow the settled principle which has been laid down by the precedents of this Court that pensionary benefits are not a matter of charity, but reflect a just entitlement of the employees for services which have been rendered in the past. Of course, pension is payable in accordance with the terms of service applicable to each class of employees. 12. The Special Leave Petition, is confined to the direction of the High Court for the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In fact, in the Synopsis to the Petition, the following statement has been made: “At the outset, it may be clarified that in the present petition, the petitioner is restricting its challenge only to the interest component that the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to levy upon the petitioner.” 13. In this view of the matter, the government would have to pay the outstanding salaries which have been deferred for the months of March and April 2020, together with the pensionary dues of the pensioners. In this view of the matter, the government would have to pay the outstanding salaries which have been deferred for the months of March and April 2020, together with the pensionary dues of the pensioners. In all fairness the government has stated before the Court that it will do so and has sought a reasonable period of time in view of its precarious financial position. 14. During the course of the hearing, we have indicated to the State specifically that since the direction of the High Court for the payment of the deferred portion has still not been complied with, the government may do so expeditiously. The State government has encountered a financial crisis due to the onset of the pandemic. Holding it on the razor’s edge is not a pragmatic way to approach the issue. Learned counsel for the State has on taking instructions fairly stated that the State government is ready to do so. We accordingly direct that the deferred portion of payments on account of salaries, pensions and honoraria due to the employees, or as the case may be, to the former employees, shall be paid in two equal tranches, the first of which shall be paid on or before 15 December 2020, while the second shall be paid on or before 15 January 2021. The State government would, however, not be prevented from making the payment even before the time schedule which has been indicated in the above directions should it take a decision to do so. 15. As regards payment of interest, we are presently inclined to stay the direction of the High Court. We are of the view that it would be appropriate to grant an opportunity to the respondents to file their counter affidavit in the Special Leave Petition so as to enable the Court to take a considered view on the next date of listing. We accordingly issue notice on the direction issued by the High Court for the payment of interest at 12% per annum. . 16. The State shall, within a period of two weeks from today, file a comprehensive affidavit indicating the extent of the interest liability so as to enable the Court to take a considered view in the matter. The counter affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks from the date of the filing of the affidavit by the State. 17. The counter affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks from the date of the filing of the affidavit by the State. 17. Pending further orders of this Court, the direction of the High Court for the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall remain stayed. 18. The issue regarding entitlement to interest will be considered when the Petition is taken up for hearing. 19. List the Special Leave Petition in the third week of January 2021.