JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 21.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24202 of 2019. While appellants in Writ Appeal No.489 of 2025 were respondents 1 and 4 in the said W.P.(C), appellants in Writ Appeal No.568 of 2025 were respondents 2 and 3 therein. The 1 st respondent in these Writ Appeal was the petitioner in the W.P.(C). 2. The W.P.(C) had been filed by the 1 st respondent, who was employed as a process server in the District Court, Kasaragod, and had been dismissed from service on finalisation of disciplinary proceedings as per Exhibit P1 order. By Exhibit P2 order, his punishment had been reduced to compulsory retirement, which, according to him, came into effect from the afternoon of 21.12.2012. The grievance of the 1 st respondent as made out in the W.P.(C) was that though the pensionary benefits due to him had been admitted vide Exhibits P4 and P5, pursuant to Exhibit P3 proposal forwarded by the 3 rd respondent, the date of effect of pension in Exhibits P4 and P5 is typed as 22.12.2012 the same had been modified by writing as 18.9.2017. Aggrieved by the denial of arrears of pension from 21.12.2012 to 18.09.2017 and contending that the compulsory retirement took effect from 21.12.2012 entitling him to monetary benefits of pension from 22.12.2012 onwards, W.P.(C) was filed, the following reliefs were sought: “i) a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 and set aside them to the extent to which they deny arrears of pension from 22.12.2012 to 18.09.2018 ; ii) a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd and 4 th respondents to grant the petitioner monthly pension with effect from 22.12.2012 and disburse the arrears of pension to him for the period from 22.12.2012 to 18.09.2017 with interest @12% for delay ; and iii) any other writ or order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in this case.” 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.(C), directing the 3 rd and 4 th respondents therein to grant the 1 st respondent pension with effect from 22.12.2012 and also directing them to disburse the arrears from 22.12.2012 to 19.09.2017 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the judgment with interest at the rate of 6%. The learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.(C), directing the 3 rd and 4 th respondents therein to grant the 1 st respondent pension with effect from 22.12.2012 and also directing them to disburse the arrears from 22.12.2012 to 19.09.2017 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the judgment with interest at the rate of 6%. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents in the W.P.(C) have preferred the above Writ Appeals. 4. Heard Sri.K.P.Harish, Senior Government Pleader, and Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose, Advocate, for the appellants in both Writ Appeals. Sri.Murali Pallath, Advocate, was heard on behalf of the 1 st respondent. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants in the W.As that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and is hence fit to be interfered with. It is contended that the learned Single Judge had overlooked the fact that the 1 st respondent had submitted his application for pension only on 30.08.2017 which clearly disentitled him from making the claims as now seen put forth. He had been dismissed from service on 21.12.2012, and on appeal, the same had been modified to compulsory retirement. Though the 1 st respondent ought to have submitted his application for pension immediately after the issuance of the order in appeal dated 15.02.2014, he had chosen to submit his application for pension only on 30.08.2017. The application was forwarded by the pension sanctioning authority on 19.09.2017. The said aspects being writ large, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that Exhibits P4 and P5 do not state as to why the pension had been authorised only from 19.09.2017 is incorrect and unsustainable. Reliance is placed on Rule 119 of Part III KSR, and it is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in finding that the pension sanctioned was an ordinary service pension. It is contended that Rule 120 of Part III actually applied to the case of the 1 st respondent, and the said provision inter alia stipulates that if an application for pension is preferred 3 years after the employee had retired, then a mandatory sanction ought to be obtained from the Government. In the case of the 1 st respondent, he ought to have submitted his application for pension immediately after 15.02.2014. However, he chose to apply for pension only on 30.08.2017, ie., after a period of 3 years. In the case of the 1 st respondent, he ought to have submitted his application for pension immediately after 15.02.2014. However, he chose to apply for pension only on 30.08.2017, ie., after a period of 3 years. Thus, going by the provisions of Rule 120, Part III KSR, Government sanction was necessary for the grant of pension for the delayed period, and hence the pension takes effect only from the date of the order. It is thus contended that the 1 st respondent is not entitled to get his pension with retrospective effect, and it is for the Government to issue orders as per Rule 120 of Part III KSR to examine whether he is entitled for payment of pension with retrospective effect. It is submitted that, as per Rule 110, Part III KSR, it was the duty of a Government employee to submit his formal application for pension at least one year in advance of the date of his anticipatory retirement. The proviso (i) to the said Rule stipulates that in cases in which the date of retirement cannot be foreseen, one year in advance, the application shall be submitted immediately after the date of retirement is settled. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Pappan [ 2021 (2) KLT 774 ], wherein it had been held that under special cases and if under special circumstances a pension is granted long after the employee has retired, retrospective effect should not be given to the same without special order of the Government which granted it and in the absence of special order the said pension takes effect only from the date of the sanction as per Rule 120. In view of the above legal position, it is submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Part III pension Rules of the KSR, necessitating interference in appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and that the same had been rendered in accordance with law. He submits that the nature of pension of the 1 st respondent is an ordinary service pension and that Rule 120 of the KSR relating to special pension has no applicability to the fact situation at hand. He submits that the nature of pension of the 1 st respondent is an ordinary service pension and that Rule 120 of the KSR relating to special pension has no applicability to the fact situation at hand. This aspect, according to the learned counsel, is evident from Exhibit P4 verification report wherein the pension of the 1 st respondent had been specifically termed as Ordinary/ Service Pension. It is submitted that the Head of the Office has to issue notice, and if such notice is not issued, then no delay could be attributed on to the employee. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Kuruvilla v. State [1996 KHC 142] wherein it had been held that Rule 115A of Part III KSR, which provides that as the first step, the Head of the Office shall send to every non-gazetted employee a copy of Form II formal application for pension one year in advance of the date on which the Government employee attains the age of superannuation or before the date of his anticipated retirement, if earlier, requiring him to return it duly filled in along with necessary documents within a period of 3 months, but in no case later than the actual date of retirement, cannot be overlooked. It had also been held therein that on a combined reading of Rule 110 and Rule 115 of Part III KSR, it is clear that it is incumbent in the Head of the Office who has to forward the employee’s Form II application one year in advance of the date on which the employee attains the age of superannuation and if the said requirement which is mandatorily laid down under Rule 115 of Part III KSR is not complied with, the respondents in the W.P.(C) cannot take a stand that delay had been occasioned on account of the laxity on the part of the employee. Relying on the said judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent that since the earlier termination of the 1 st respondent had been altered to compulsory retirement, the pension should be from the termination i.e., in 2012 and not from 19.09.2017. The learned Single Judge has properly appreciated the fact, situation and law, and the judgment calls for no interference. 7. We have heard both sides and have considered the contentions put forth. The learned Single Judge has properly appreciated the fact, situation and law, and the judgment calls for no interference. 7. We have heard both sides and have considered the contentions put forth. The question to be considered is whether the learned Single Judge had erred in concluding that in the case at hand, the pension was sanctioned to the 1 st respondent not with reference to any special order issued by the Government and that the respondents in the W.P. (C) were not justified in proceeding with the reference to Rule 120 Part III KSR. Rules regarding payment of pension, as laid down in Rules 119 and 120 of Chapter IX of Section I of Part III of the KSR assume relevance. Rule 119 stipulates that apart from Special Orders, an ordinary pension is payable from the date on which the pensioner ceased to be borne on the establishment. The said Rule applies only to ordinary pensions and not to special cases. ‘Special cases’ of payment of pension are dealt with in Rule 120, which mandates that if, under ‘special circumstances’, a pension is granted after 3 years an employee has retired, retrospective effect should not be given to it without the special orders of the Government which granted it ; in the absence of special orders, such a pension takes effect only from the date of sanction. It is further clarified that no Government sanction is necessary, if the pension is granted within 3 years from the date of retirement. A Division Bench of this Court in Pappan (supra) had as mentioned above held that the adverse provision in the second limb of Rule 120, Part III KSR, applies only when the delay in submitting pension papers is solely due to the pensioner employee’s default and if the papers were submitted promptly by him after retirement, the authorities had no legal bar to sanction the pension. 8. The legal position being as stated above, it is to be examined first whether, in the facts at hand, the appellant's situation could be termed as one falling under Rule 119 or Rule 120. If indeed the ‘special circumstances’ exist, and the pension is thus a ‘special pension’, then the question regarding the second limb of Rule 120 as dealt with in Pappan (supra), ie., whether the delay in submitting pension papers was solely due to the pensioner employees’ default, arises. If indeed the ‘special circumstances’ exist, and the pension is thus a ‘special pension’, then the question regarding the second limb of Rule 120 as dealt with in Pappan (supra), ie., whether the delay in submitting pension papers was solely due to the pensioner employees’ default, arises. Admittedly, the 1 st respondent was dismissed from service on 21.12.2012. The said order was modified by the Appellate Authority on 15.02.2014 as compulsory retirement from service. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent had submitted his application for pension only on 30.08.2017. The same was forwarded by the Pension sanctioning authority, on 19.09.2017, to the Accountant General. The verification report was issued by the Accountant General on 26.10.2017, sanctioning pension with effect from 19.09.2017. The 1 st respondent contended that since the order of compulsory retirement relates to the order of dismissal ie., 21.12.2012, he ought to have been granted pension with effect from 22.12.2012. The dispute thus boils down to the question of whether the order issued is a Special Order that falls within Rule 120 of Chapter IX of Section I of Part III of the KSR. Generally, a delay in applying for pension does not, as such, constitute a ‘special circumstance’ that could attract Rule 120. However, the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the dismissal of the 1st respondent had been altered to compulsory retirement and subsequently, there has indeed been an inordinate delay which has not been validly explained. Further, the 1 st respondent, according to the appellants in W.A.No.568 of 2025 had not approached them with any grievance challenging the date of grant of pension till the filing of the W.P.(C) in the year 2019. The 1 st respondent had not put forth a valid cause or reason to quash Exts.P4 and P5. The legal mandates for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against the 3 rd respondent had not been complied with. The learned Single Judge had overlooked the said aspects. The Writ Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.