JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. In all these cases, the challenge is to the order of Government bearing number GO (P) No. 38/21/Fin. dated 25.02.2021, through which, the Government issued certain orders relating to revision of pension and Family Pension to those coming under the scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC). 2. Even though the Government had earlier issued two other orders, the stipulations therein were substituted through the ones contained in the aforementioned order. The petitioners are aggrieved because, in the said order, paragraph 6.1 provides as under: The revised pension/family pension shall be granted in cash with effect from 01.04.2021. Arrears of pension revision for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2019 will be notional. Pensioners/Family Pensioners prior to 01.01.2016 are eligible to draw arrears from 01.07.2019 to 31.03.2021 on account of revision of Pension/Family Pension in four installments each at 25% of the arrears, in cash on April 2021, May 2021, August 2021 and November 2021. In the case of those who retired on or after 01.01.2016, the arrears of Pension, Family Pension, DCRG and Terminal Surrender will be disbursed as stated above. Arrears on Commutation will be disbursed in a single installment in cash on 01.10.2021. They say that deferring of pension is illegal, as also rendering it as being notional for any period; and that the Government did not have the right to fix any cut off date, as has been done therein, in view of the affirmative declarations of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 360. They thus pray that the order, to the extent impugned, be set aside. 3. I have heard Sri. V. Krishna Menon, Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair and Sri. Mathew Jacob - learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and Smt. M.R. Sreelatha - learned Special Government Pleader for Finance. 4. The afore submissions of the petitioners were refuted by the learned Special Government Pleader relying upon a counter affidavit filed in some of these cases. She argued that the revision of pension, on account of the UGC Scheme, to all the pensioners and retired employees, would cause a huge drain on the finances of the State and therefore, that it was incumbent upon them to have made provisions, including by stipulating cut-off dates. She argued that the revision of pension, on account of the UGC Scheme, to all the pensioners and retired employees, would cause a huge drain on the finances of the State and therefore, that it was incumbent upon them to have made provisions, including by stipulating cut-off dates. She submitted that this is permissible in law, within the declarations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.N. Menon and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 68 , which sanctions power to the Government to fix a cut-off date, since the benefits under the revision can be shouldered only within the financial resources available to them. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader then added that the present financial situation of the Government is in such state that the entire amounts as per the revision cannot be paid to all the employees or pensioners and that this has been exacerbated on account of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic scenario, coupled with natural calamities, which have crippled the State’s financial capacity. She then complained that the situation has become far worse because payments under the GST regime of the Government of India have not been properly paid to the State, but that in spite of all this, the Government have fulfilled its primary duty of providing relief to its citizens by administering various social welfare schemes including Social Security Pension etc., as also new responsibilities under the Health Sector. She submitted that, therefore, if the Government is asked to shoulder the entire burden of revised pension, it would be impossible; and consequently, that it was within its power to decide the manner in which the arrears of revised pension are to be honoured. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in particular Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair, pointed out that P.N. Menon (supra) has been subsequently spoken about by the Honourable Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur and Others, (2020) 14 SCC 625 . He argued that the Honourable Supreme Court has clarified that P.N. Menon (supra) was delivered in a completely different set of circumstances, because the controversy therein was regarding the Dearness Pay entitled to the employees when they retired from service and that they had contended that a particular Office Memorandum (OM) would not apply to them. He argued that the Honourable Supreme Court has clarified that P.N. Menon (supra) was delivered in a completely different set of circumstances, because the controversy therein was regarding the Dearness Pay entitled to the employees when they retired from service and that they had contended that a particular Office Memorandum (OM) would not apply to them. He pointed out that the Honourable Supreme Court had noticed, in the said case, that the pension scheme applicable therein was contributory and that it is only with effect from 22.09.1977 it was made non-contributory; and that therefore, since the petitioners therein were not in service at the time of introducing the same, they were held not eligible for the said benefit. He concluded his submissions saying that in All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has reiteratingly clarified that P.N. Menon (supra) would not apply to the facts of any other case. 7. Even though I have recorded the afore contentions and contra contentions of the parties, I am of the firm view that it will not be justified for this Court to enter into the merits of the same at the first instance, since the Government never had an opportunity of reviewing its decision - should it feel so necessary - consequent to the issuance of the impugned order. 8. That said, I am fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri. Krishna Menon - learned counsel for some of the petitioners, that the Government has now come out with another order deferring payment of even admitted arrears of pension, but this has been done within the purlieus of the earlier order impugned in these cases. Therefore, even though applications for amendments have been made in some of these cases, to challenge the subsequent order of the Government, I do not think it will be relevant because, if the impugned order is reconsidered by the Government, then the corollary consequence would be that the subsequent order will also have to follow suit. Of course, this is only if the Government takes a different view resultant to their reconsideration, which I propose to ask them. 9. Of course, this is only if the Government takes a different view resultant to their reconsideration, which I propose to ask them. 9. That being said, there is certainly some merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, while the Government issued the order dated 25.02.2021, they ought to have kept in mind the ratio in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya (supra) and All Manipur Pensioners’ Association (supra). This is because, even when the Government says that they do not have fiscal capacity to honour the entire burden of revision of pension and its arrears, the acme question is whether they can fix a cut-off date or defer such payment. It may be true that the Government has some limitation in its financial resources at the moment, but as long as the pension is not a bounty and is a vested right of the persons entitled to it, the Government certainly ought to have taken their objections also into account before the impugned order could have been issued, particularly in the light of the afore two precedents or any other, which covers the field. 10. Merely to clarify at this stage, even though the impugned orders suggest that the Government had discussions with Associations of Pensioners, I do not think that it would be sufficient, because the petitioners assert that there are no such Associations and that they are not members of any such. 11. Be that as it may, as I have said above, what is relevant is not merely that the Government had heard certain persons, but that they have put their mind to the forensic issues which are mandatorily applicable. 12. This is more so, because, as I have already said above, it has been declared by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly in the past that pension is not a bounty, and that it is a right vested in the individuals entitled to receive it [State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, (2013) 12 SCC 210 ]. 13. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions to the limited extent of directing the Government to reconsider Clause 6.1 of the Government Order bearing No. GO (P) No. 38/2021/Fin. dated 25.02.2021, as also its subsequent order bearing No. GO (P) No. 162/2021/Fin. 13. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions to the limited extent of directing the Government to reconsider Clause 6.1 of the Government Order bearing No. GO (P) No. 38/2021/Fin. dated 25.02.2021, as also its subsequent order bearing No. GO (P) No. 162/2021/Fin. dated 02.12.2021, in the conspectus of the afore observations and adverting specifically to the precedents cited above. 14. The afore exercise shall be done by the Government, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or to their representatives; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. Needless to say, even though I have not quashed the order dated 25.02.2021 or even Clause 6.1 of the same, am certain that Government must consider the claims of the petitioners, including by modification of the said Clause - if it is so warranted, adverting to the afore declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; in which event, all necessary consequences will thereafter follow, without any avoidable delay. 16. I am persuaded to the afore view also because when the State pleads financial stringency, only the pensioners put to detriment, without any other sections being asked to shoulder the responsibility. In fact, the pensioners are the more vulnerable category - they having reached the autumn of their lives and reduction of their financial support would certainly put them to greater prejudice than the persons who are in service or who are younger. This will also be kept in mind by the Government while issuing the orders in terms of the afore directions.