JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 not to issue the Letter of Appointment (LOA) in favour of Respondent No.4 Shri Nand Lal for running the Retail Outlet dealership at Baroha Block, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No.4 to stop the construction work for installation of the Retail Outlet dealership at Baroha Block, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that process was initiated by respondent No.2 for allotment of Retail Outlet dealership, in the year 2018, vide Advertisement, dated 25.11.2018, in different stations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It also included Baroha Block in Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. To cut the controversy short, both the petitioner as well as the private respondent applied for grant of said Retail Outlet dealership and Baroha, which was advertised under OBC Category. The Petrol Pump was allotted to respondent No.4 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has informed the Court that the Petrol Pump is functioning since October, 2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allotment of the Petrol Pump to the petitioner is bad on two counts. He argued that allotment of the Petrol Pump is in violation of Clause- 6 of the Brochure relating to the selection of dealers, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-1 and further, the Petrol Pump could not be allotted to the private respondent in the light of the fact that there is a school in close vicinity thereof. No other ground was urged. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as also learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.4, this Court does not finds any merit in this petition. 5. According to the petitioner, as respondent No.4 is a retired Government servant and he is drawing pension, therefore, he was barred from being allotted the Petrol Pump, because in terms of Clause 6 of the Brochure (Annexure P-1), any person who was drawing any salary/perks/emoluments from the State/Central Government could not have been allotted the dealership. 5. According to the petitioner, as respondent No.4 is a retired Government servant and he is drawing pension, therefore, he was barred from being allotted the Petrol Pump, because in terms of Clause 6 of the Brochure (Annexure P-1), any person who was drawing any salary/perks/emoluments from the State/Central Government could not have been allotted the dealership. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as respondent No.4 was drawing pension, therefore, he was not eligible for the grant of Retail Outlet, as pension amounted to grant of perks/receipt of emoluments by the said respondent from his erstwhile employer. 6. In the considered view of this Court, this objection to the allotment of the Retail Outlet to the petitioner has no merit. Clause 6 of the Brochure reads as under:- “A person selected for the dealership shall be paying attention towards day to day working of the dealership by personally managing the affairs of the dealership. He/She will not be eligible for taking up any employment. If the selected person is already employed he/she will have to resign from the employment and produce the letter of acceptance of resignation by the employer before the issuance of Letter of Appointment by the Oil Company. Further at the time of issuance of letter of appointment, the LOI holder will have to give notarized affidavit stating that he/she is not employed in Private Sector or is not drawing any salary/perks/ emoluments from State / Central Government (Appendix - IV). The LOI holder will also affirm that during the tenure of the Dealership he/she will not take up any employment in Private Sector or will not draw any salary/perks/emoluments from State /Central Government. A Non- Individual applicant (entity) selected for the dealership will have to manage day to day working/affairs of the dealership under control/supervision of their own employee(s) and in line with the provisions of dealership agreement.” 7. A perusal of said Clause demonstrates that a person is debarred from being allotted the Petrol Pump Outlet in case be is drawing any salary/Perks/emoluments from the State/ Central Government. Admittedly, the private respondent is not drawing any salary from the State/ Central Government. He is getting pension for the service that was rendered by him in the Police Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is settled law that pension is not a bounty, but hard earned property of an employee. 8. Admittedly, the private respondent is not drawing any salary from the State/ Central Government. He is getting pension for the service that was rendered by him in the Police Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is settled law that pension is not a bounty, but hard earned property of an employee. 8. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the pension which a retired employee drawn on account of the years of service which he has put with his erstwhile employer, can either be drawn as a Perk or as an emolument. It is settled law that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and nor an ex-gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. The pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. (See: D.S. Nakara and Others Versus Union of India, (1983) 1 Supreme Court Cases 305). 9. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the words “emoluments”, “pension” and “perks” have been defined as under:- “Emolument /?mólyam?nt/. The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office. McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 38 S.Ct. 122, 124, 57 L.Ed. 260; State ex rel. Todd v. Reeves, 196 Wash. 145, 82 P.2d 173, 175.” “Pension. Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally, monthly), with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred compensation for services ren-dered. Waite v. Waite, 6 C.3d 461, 99 Cal. Rptr. 325, 330, 492 P.2d 13. See also Pension plan; Vested pension.” “Perquisites /p?rkw?z?ts/. Emoluments, privileges, fringe benefits, or other incidental profits or benefits attaching to an office or employment position in addition to regular salary or wages. Shortened term "Perks" is used with reference to such extraordinary benefits afforded to business executives (e.g. free cars, club memberships, insurance, etc.). See also Fringe benefits.” 10. See also Pension plan; Vested pension.” “Perquisites /p?rkw?z?ts/. Emoluments, privileges, fringe benefits, or other incidental profits or benefits attaching to an office or employment position in addition to regular salary or wages. Shortened term "Perks" is used with reference to such extraordinary benefits afforded to business executives (e.g. free cars, club memberships, insurance, etc.). See also Fringe benefits.” 10. In the light of the definitions quoted hereinabove, the contention of the petitioner that the private respondent was not eligible for the grant of dealership on account of his drawing pension for the service earlier rendered by him in the Police Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh has no merit and the same is hereby rejected. 11. As far as other contention of the petitioner is concerned that allotment of the Petrol Pump to the private respondent is bad as there is a school in close vicinity thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot even be allowed to rake up this issue. The petitioner herein is one of the candidates who participated in the process of allotment of the Petrol Pump. Even at the time when she applied for the allotment of the Petrol Pump, she was fully aware of the existence of the said school. That being the case and in the light of the fact that the petitioner was an aspirant for the grant of the Retail Outlet, she cannot be allowed to challenge the allotment of the same in favour of the private respondent on the said ground. 12. Therefore, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition and the grounds on which the petitioner is assailing the allotment of the Petrol Pump in favour of respondent No.4 are without any merit, the petition is dismissed with cost amounting at Rs.50,000/-. Rs.25,000/-shall be paid to respondent No.3 and Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.