JUDGMENT : (Suman Shyam, J.) Heard Ms. V. Sukhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1). Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This intra-court appeal filed by the State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland as the appellant No. 1 and the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell), Nagaland as appellant No. 2, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-06-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 281/2022 instituted by the respondent No. 1 as writ petitioner, whereby a direction has been issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 at 50% of the revised basic pay scale of Rs. 54,600/- corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the writ petitioner had retired from service, within a period of 03 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment and order failing which, the amount found due and payable shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. 3. The facts of the case, lie in a narrow campus and therefore, are being briefly stated hereinbelow as follows:- The respondent No. 1 had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28-02-2005 from the post of Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. At the time of his retirement the respondent No. 1 was placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 16400-500-20900 and he was drawing the apex level of that scale at Rs. 20,900/-. His last drawn salary being Rs.31,350/-. 4. The Nagaland Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ”ROP Rules, 2010”) were framed by the Govt. of Nagaland, which was originally given effect from 01-06-2008. Consequently, the decision of the Govt. of Nagaland to adopt the decision of the Govt. of India as regards revision of pension, family pension of pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners were also notified by the Govt. of Nagaland, Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell) by issuing Office Memorandum dated 05-05-2017 whereby, entitlement of the pre 01-06-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners for revised pension were laid down. of Nagaland to adopt the decision of the Govt. of India as regards revision of pension, family pension of pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners were also notified by the Govt. of Nagaland, Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell) by issuing Office Memorandum dated 05-05-2017 whereby, entitlement of the pre 01-06-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners for revised pension were laid down. In the OM dated 05-05-2017, it was mentioned that the effective date for implementation of the Govt. decision shall be w.e.f. 01-06-2013 and there shall be no change in the amount of revised pension/ family pension paid during the period from 01-06-2008 to 31-05-2013 and therefore, no arrear will be payable on account of those years. 5. Thereafter, on 20-12-2017 the Govt. of Nagaland in the Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell), had issued another OM altering the date of implementation of the revised pension/ family pension w.e.f. 01-04-2010, i.e. the date of implementation of the ROP Rules, 2010. A ready reckoner, indicating the minimum pension/ family pension for the pre 01-06-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners was also annexed to the OM dated 20-12-2017 as Annexure-I. 6. As per Annexure-I (ready reckoner) to the OM dated 20-12-2017, which was made applicable to pre 01-06-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners, the post/ grade and pay scale w.e.f. 01-06-1998 for Rs. 16400- 500-20900 would correspond to pay band/ scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 9000/-. The said Annexure-I had further laid down that minimum of pay in the corresponding revised pay band pertaining to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 16400-500-20900 as per Fitment Table would be Rs. 49590/-. That apart, Annexure-I had further laid down that minimum pension of 50% of the sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to Rs. 16400-500-20900 would be Rs. 24795/-. 7. The entitlement of the pre-2008 pensioners such as the respondent No. 1 to receive revised monthly pension of 50% of the pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale w.e.f. 01-04-2010 is provided under Rule 19(1) (a)(e)(v). According to the respondent No. 1, since at the time of his retirement from service, he was drawing the pre-revised basic pay of Rs. 20900/- which was the apex stage of the pay scale of Rs. According to the respondent No. 1, since at the time of his retirement from service, he was drawing the pre-revised basic pay of Rs. 20900/- which was the apex stage of the pay scale of Rs. 16400-500-20900, hence, as per Fitment Table- 20 of Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010 and the OM dated 05-05-2017, the corresponding stage of the revised pay scale for fixing his pension would be Rs. 54600/-. Since, as per Rule-19, the petitioner was entitled to a minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale in the corresponding revised pay band under the ROP Rules, 2010, hence, he claimed to be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 27300/- per month w.e.f. 01- 04-2010 being 50% of the corresponding stage of the revised basic pay of Rs. 54,600/-. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 is that instead of paying him the amount of Rs. 27300/- the appellants have granted him pension amounting to Rs. 24795/- only which was less than 50% of Rs. 54,600/-. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 1 had submitted representations before the authorities on 23-08-2021, 01-10-2021 and 02- 12-2021 ventilating his grievance in the matter with a request to re-fix his pension as per provisions of OM dated 05-05-2017 and Fitment Table, Annexure- III of the ROP Rules, 2010 applicable to pre 01-06-2008 pensioners. 8. It appears that on receipt of the representations submitted by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell) i.e. appellant No. 2 herein, had written a letter to the Principal AG (A&E), Nagaland, i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein, indicating that the pension of the respondent No. 1 had not been fixed in accordance with Table- 20 of Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010 and therefore, a request was made to review and re-fix the pension of the retired official in accordance with Table- 20 of Annexure-III of ROP Rules, 2010. 9. Upon receipt of the communication dated 02-03-2022, the respondent No. 2 had replied back on 09-06-2022 seeking clarification from the department as to how, Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010, as indicated in the OM dated 05-05-2017, would be applicable to the pre 2008 pensioners/ family pensioners. Upon receipt of the communication dated 09- 06-2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. Upon receipt of the communication dated 09- 06-2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland had addressed another communication dated 05-09-2022 to the respondent No. 2, once again reiterating that the respondent No. 1 had retired from service after reaching the apex basic pay in the pay scale and therefore, his pension ought to be fixed with reference to the corresponding pay band of ROP, 2010 and not with reference to the minimum of the pay scale. 10. When no action was taken by the respondent No. 2 despite receipt of the communication dated 05-09-2022, the respondent No. 1 had served a legal notice dated 14-10-2022 upon the respondent No. 2 demanding re- fixation of his pension as per the projection made in his representation. However, no action was taken in the matter by the respondent No. 2. Hence, the respondent No. 1, as writ petitioner, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 281/2022, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 10-06-2024. Hence, this appeal by the State. 11. Ms. V. Sukhrie, learned Addl. AG, Govt. of Nagaland, appearing for the appellants has argued that the Nagaland Service (ROP) Rules, 2010 came into effect from 01-06-2008, i.e. after the date of retirement of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the same would not have any application for fixation of pension of the respondent No. 1. According to Ms. Sukhrie the Fitment Table- 20 of Annexure-III of the Nagaland Service (ROP) Rules, 2010 relates to fixation of pay in the revised pay band only in case of those employees who were still in service and therefore, the same would not have any application in case of pre 2008 pensioners. The learned Addl. Advocate General has further submitted that in terms of the ready reckoner annexed as Annexure-I to the OM dated 20-12-2017, the revised pension payable to the respondent No. 1 is Rs. 24795/- which amount has already been sanctioned to him. Since the respondent No. 1 has not challenged the OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017, hence, he cannot claim pension in excess of what has been provided to him as per Annexure-I of the notification dated 20-12-2017. To such extent, submits Ms. 24795/- which amount has already been sanctioned to him. Since the respondent No. 1 has not challenged the OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017, hence, he cannot claim pension in excess of what has been provided to him as per Annexure-I of the notification dated 20-12-2017. To such extent, submits Ms. Sukhrie, the impugned judgment and order dated 10-06-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is vitiated by complete illegality and hence, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 12. Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, while reiterating the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellants, has further argued that the Fitment Table annexed to the ROP Rules, 2010 would not be applicable to the respondent No. 1 as he is a retired employee and therefore, he cannot claim pension based on the corresponding pay scale reflected in the Fitment Table annexed to the ROP Rules, 2010, which, according to Mr. Mozhui, is applicable only to the serving employees. It is also the submission of Mr. Mozhui that the office of Principal AG(A&E), Nagaland as well as Sr. Accounts Officer, i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are not the pension sanctioning authorities of the respondent No. 1 but are merely scrutinizing authorities so as to figure out discrepancies, irregularities and infirmities, if any, in the pension payment order. The competent authority to sanction and/ or fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 would be the head of the department, which in this case would be the appellants. To such extent, submits Mr. Mozhui, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge upon the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-fix the pension of the petitioner is wholly illegal and hence, unsustainable in the eyes of law. 13. Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has argued that the respondent authorities have erred in fixing the pension of the petitioner by failing to take note of the correct stage of the corresponding revised pay scale, as a result of which, his client has been unduly made to suffer. Mr. 13. Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has argued that the respondent authorities have erred in fixing the pension of the petitioner by failing to take note of the correct stage of the corresponding revised pay scale, as a result of which, his client has been unduly made to suffer. Mr. Luikham submits that the pension of his client is required to be re-fixed with reference to the correct stage of the corresponding revised pay scale as per the Fitment Table-20 of Annexure- III of the ROP Rules, 2010 and the arrear amount, along with interest, is required to be paid to the respondent No. 1. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Luikha, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 10-06-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. After a careful reading of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-06-2024, we find that the learned Single Judge has not only taken note of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case but has also elaborately dealt with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties and after taking note of the legal principles laid down in the case of (a) Nisha Priya Bhatiya Vs. UoI , reported in (2020) 133 SCC 56 ; (b) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma reported in (2015) 9 SCC 540 ; (c) D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. UoI , reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 ; (d) Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 106 as well as (e) GM, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Lazmi Devi & Ors. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 205 had arrived at the conclusion that, pension being a constitutional right of a retired Govt. servant, the same cannot be overridden by any executive instruction nor can it be unduly reduced. Accepting the plea of the respondent No. 1 that his pension ought to be re-fixed with reference to the corresponding stage of the revised pay scale, i.e. Rs. 54,600/-, the learned Single Judge has issued a writ of mandamus granting 03 months’ time to the respondents to re-fix the pension of the respondent No. 1. 15. As noted hereinabove, the respondent No. 1 had retired from service on 28-02-2005 from the post of Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. 54,600/-, the learned Single Judge has issued a writ of mandamus granting 03 months’ time to the respondents to re-fix the pension of the respondent No. 1. 15. As noted hereinabove, the respondent No. 1 had retired from service on 28-02-2005 from the post of Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. At the time of his retirement, the last pay drawn by the respondent No. 1 was Rs. 31,350/- which was corresponding to the basic pay of Rs. 20,900/-, which was the apex stage of the pay scale of Rs. 16400-500- 20900. The basic contention of the respondent No. 1 is that the authorities have failed to properly implement the ROP Rules, 2010 by fixing his revised pension with reference to the corresponding stage of the revised pay scale, which in this case ought to be Rs. 54,600/-. Since heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties on the OM dated 05-05-2017, we deem it necessary to reproduce the said OM hereunder for ready reference: OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Implementation of the decision of the Government of India- Revision of Pension/ Family Pension of Pre-2008 Pensioners/ Family Pensioners. Ref: 1. O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 2. O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 13.02.2013 3. O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 30.07.2015 The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above, and to convey the approval of the Government of Nagaland to adopt the decision of the Government of India in the following manner: 1. The existing provisions under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule-19 of Nagaland Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 is modified as follows: i. The pension/ family pension of pre 1.6.2008 pensioners/family pensioners as revised with effect from 1.6.2008 in terms of the Sub-Rule (1) of Rule-19 of Nagaland Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as notified by the Finance Department vide No. FIM/ROP/VI-PC/1/2008 dated 10.8.2010, as amended from time to time, shall be furher stepped up to 50%/ 30% as the case may be, of the sum of minimum of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired as arrived at with reference to the Fitment Tables annexed as Annexure-III to the Nagaland Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 notified vide Finance Department Notification dated 10.8.2010 referred to above. ii. The effective date of this modification shall be 01.06.2013. ii. The effective date of this modification shall be 01.06.2013. There shall be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 1.6.2008 to 31.05.2013, and, therefore no arrear will be payable on account of these orders for that period. 2. This Office Memorandum is issued with the clearance of the P&AR department vide U.O. No. 42 dated 02.08.2013 and approval of the Cabinet conveyed vide letter No. CAB-2/2013 dated26.04.2017. Sd/- TEMJEN TOY Additional Chief Secretary & Finance Commissioner 16. By the subsequent OM dated 20-12-2017, the Govt. of Nagaland had altered the date from which the revision of pension/ family pension would become effective by providing that it will be effective from 01-04-2010, which is the date of implementation of the ROP Rules, 2010. 17. There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that Rule 19(1) of the ROP Rules, 2010 pertaining to payment of pension would be applicable in case of pensioners, such as the respondent No. 1. Rule 19 of the ROP Rules, 2010 is being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference: Rule-19 PENSION (1) Revised Pension/ Family Pension: (a) Pension to be paid at 50% of the average emoluments/ last pay drawn (whichever is more beneficial) without linking to 33 years of qualifying service for grant of full pension, provided the employee concerned has rendered a minimum pensionable service of 20 years. (e) The pension/ family pension of all existing pensioners/family pensioners (that is, persons drawing pension/ family pension as on 31.05.2008) shall be consolidated as on 01.06.2008. (v) The amount so arrived will be the revised basic pension subject to the provision that the revised pension/ family pension in no case, shall be lower than 50%/ 30% of the sum of the minimum of pay in the Pay Band and the Grade Pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired/ died. 18. A conjoint reading of the OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017 as well as Rule 19(1)(a)(e)(v) would leave no room for doubt that the ROP Rules, 2010 would not only be applicable in case of pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners but the effective date for revision of their pension would be from 01-04-2010. If that be so, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent Nos. If that be so, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that the ROP Rules, 2010 would not have any application in case of pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners. 19. Coming to the next question as to whether, the Fitment Table-20 of Annexure- III of the ROP Rules, 2010 would at all have any bearing in deciding the claim of the pensioners such as the respondent No. 1, it will be significant to note herein that, in Annexure-I of the OM dated 20-12-2017, although a ready reckoner has been provided indicating the corresponding pay band of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 16400-500-20900 to be Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 9900/-, yet, a fixed amount as the minimum pension, equivalent to 50% of the pay band, has been provided as Rs. 24796/-, which amount, in fact, has been sanctioned to the writ petitioner. There is no indication in the ready reckoner as to which stage of corresponding pay band would the revised pension for the sum of Rs. 24796/- be applicable. Conversely, viewed from the angle that the amount of Rs. 24,796/- must not be less than 50% of the revised pay band applicable to the pensioner, it is apparent that double the said amount would come to Rs. 49,592/- which amount apparently falls short of the apex stage of the revised pay band applicable to the respondent No. 1 as per the ROP Rules of 2010. If that be so, it is not understood from the materials on record as to how and in what manner, despite the mandate of Rule 19(1) of the ROP Rules, 2010, the amount of Rs. 24796/- has been arrived at so as to meet the requirement of 50% of the minimum of pay band and grade pay as applicable to the pensioner in the corresponding revised pay scale. 20. It would be interesting to note herein that upon consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the appellant No. 2 herein had himself addressed a communication to the respondent No. 2 on 02-03-2022 recommending revision of pension of the respondent No. 1. Having regard to the significant bearing that the said communication may have in the present proceeding, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the communication dated 02-03-2022 here-in-below: “To, The Pr. Having regard to the significant bearing that the said communication may have in the present proceeding, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the communication dated 02-03-2022 here-in-below: “To, The Pr. Accountant General, (A&E) Nagaland, Kohima Sub: Representation against erroneous fixation of revision of pension/ family pension of pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioners. Sir, 1. Copy of the representation dated 2nd December 2021 from Shri Shairel Raleng, retired Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench is enclosed herewith. 2. In this connection, it is stated that Table20 of Annexure-III of Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 clearly exhibits the formula for fixation of pay in respect of Pay Band 37400-67000 with Grade Pay of Rs. 9900/-. As stipulated at Rule 8(ii) of Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (copy enclosed), two additional increments at the rate of 3% have been granted to the minimum Pay Band at the time of initial fixation in respect of pay scale of Rs. 16400-500-20900 which is clearly reflected at column-3 of Annexure-III table- 20. The revised basic pay along with progress of pay in the Pay Band is reflected at column-4 of the same Annexure. 3. Further, Finance Department O.M. of even number dated 5th May 2017 clearly states that pension has to be fixed with reference to Annexure-III of Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (copy enclosed). 4. It is clear from para-2 of the representation dated 2 nd December 2021 and Pr.AG(A&E) letter No. PEN/REV/ROP’10/2021-22/17807 dated 1st October 2021 that pension in respect of the retired official has not been fixed in accordance with Table20 of Annexure- III of the retired official has not been fixed in accordance with Table20 of Annexure-IIII of Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. 5. As such, it is requested that pension in respect of the retired official be reviewed and re-fixed in accordance with table-20 of Annexure-III of ROP Rules, 2010. Yours faithfully (Taliremba) Commissioner & Secretary” 21. Thereafter, again on 05-09-2022, the Govt. of Nagaland had reiterated its stand by projecting that the pension of the respondent No. 1 ought to be fixed as per apex level of pay scale in the corresponding revised pay band and not with reference to the minimum of the pay scale. Yours faithfully (Taliremba) Commissioner & Secretary” 21. Thereafter, again on 05-09-2022, the Govt. of Nagaland had reiterated its stand by projecting that the pension of the respondent No. 1 ought to be fixed as per apex level of pay scale in the corresponding revised pay band and not with reference to the minimum of the pay scale. Notwithstanding the same, it appears that departmental authorities had subsequently taken a different stand in the matter merely because accepting the claim of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 would impose heavy financial burden upon the State of Nagaland. By deprecating such stand of the departmental authorities, the learned Single Judge had issued a writ of mandamus while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order dated 10-06-2024 are reproduced here-in-below for ready reference: 48. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this court the respondent No. 3 and 4 are directed to re-fix the pension entitlement of the petitioner to 50% of the revised basic scale of pay of Rs. 54600/- corresponding to pre-revised pay scale from which the petitioner had retired in terms of the provision of Sub-Rule 1(e) (v) of Rule 19 of the Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010, with effect from 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2017, as per Table-20 of Annexure- III of the ROP Rules, 2010 and Finance Department O.M. dated05/05/2017. 49. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this judgment and order, within a week from today, before the respondent authorities. Thereafter, within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and order the respondent authorities shall carry out the entire exercise. It is further provided that in the event of failing to carry out the exercise within the stipulated period, the accrued sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, till realization. In awarding the interest, this court derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Sharma (supra). 22. It is no doubt correct that the authority to fix the pension of the respondent No. 1, by taking into account the revised pension would be his employers, i.e. the appellants herein. In awarding the interest, this court derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Sharma (supra). 22. It is no doubt correct that the authority to fix the pension of the respondent No. 1, by taking into account the revised pension would be his employers, i.e. the appellants herein. There can also be no doubt about the fact that while fixing the revised pension of the respondent No. 1, the authorities will have to follow the provision of the rules applicable, which, in the present case, would be the ROP Rules, 2010. It appears from the materials on record that the claim of the respondent No. 1 was initially accepted by the departmental authorities which fact would be clearly borne out from the contents of the letters dated 02-03-2022 and 05-09-2022 issued by the officials of Govt. of Nagaland. There is nothing on record to show that the stand of the department, projected in the aforesaid two letters dated 02-03-2022 and 05-09-2022, had been subsequently withdrawn or altered by furnishing proper justification. If that be so, the appellants would be duty bound to fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 as per the projection made in the letter dated 02-03-2022 addressed to the respondent No. 2. However, the appellants have failed to fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 as per the projection made in the letter dated 02-03-2022 without furnishing proper justification. 23. It may be true that the Fitment Table20 of Annexure- III of the ROP Rules, 2010 would be applicable for revision of pay of serving employees of the Government. However, even in that case, what criterion or formula has been followed for fixing the pension of the respondent No. 1 in the revised scale at Rs. 24,795/- must be clearly mentioned by the appellants, which has evidently not been done in this case. On the contrary, from the materials available on record, it prima facie appears that the plea of the respondent No. 1 is not only consistent with the OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017 but such plea was also initially accepted by the appellant No. 2. On the contrary, from the materials available on record, it prima facie appears that the plea of the respondent No. 1 is not only consistent with the OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017 but such plea was also initially accepted by the appellant No. 2. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants would be duty bound to consider the grievance of the respondent No. 1, in the light of their stands projected in the communications dated 02-03-2022 and 05-09-2022 and pass appropriate order(s) therein. The mere fact that accepting the claim of the respondent No. 1 would impose heavy financial burden on the State Government due to other similar pensioners making such claims, cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be a valid ground for the authorities to reject the plea raised by the respondent No. 1. 24. Having observed as above, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the respondent No. 1 that the corresponding revised pay scale for fixing his pension would be Rs. 54,600/- as per Fitment Table-20 of Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 with reference to the revised pay scale of Rs. 54,600/-. However, such direction does not appear to be based on any cogent finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as to the reason why, the corresponding revised pay scale applicable in case of the petitioner has been held to be Rs. 54,600/-. The aforesaid aspect of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, would assume great significance in the backdrop of the plea raised by the appellants as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that the Fitment Table-20 of Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010 would be applicable only in case of serving employees and not pre-2008 pensioners/ family pensioner. In order to issue a direction to such effect, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to record a finding with proper reasons that the Fitment Table-20 of the ROP Rules would apply for fixing the revised pension of pre-2008 pensioners and that the correct revised pay scale applicable to the respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 54,600/-. In order to issue a direction to such effect, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to record a finding with proper reasons that the Fitment Table-20 of the ROP Rules would apply for fixing the revised pension of pre-2008 pensioners and that the correct revised pay scale applicable to the respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 54,600/-. But we do not fixed any specific finding to such effect. In other words, we do not find any valid determination of the issue of applicability of the correct scale in the revised pay scale by the learned Single Judge, based on which, the writ of mandamus had been issued. Rather, it appears that the learned Single Judge has issued the direction by accepting the plea of the respondent No. 1 without, however, recording any finding based on proper reasons, as to whether the revised pay scale claimed by the respondent No. 1 would actually be applicable for fixation of his pension. 25. Be it the revised pay scale of serving employees or revised pension of retired employee, pursuant to the implementation of revision of pay, the same has to be fixed as per the Fitment Table or by following some other transparent and rationale criteria, as provided by the ROP Rules. However, in the present case it is not clear from the materials on record as to which Fitment Table or formula has been applied for fixing the revised pension of the respondent No. 1 after the ROP Rules of 2010 came into effect. 26. In the ultimate analysis, it may turn out that the corresponding pay scale for fixing the revised pension of the respondent No. 1 would be Rs. 54,600/-. But for issuing a writ of mandamus, a categorical finding has to be recorded by the Court to such effect, which has not been done in this case. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the departmental authorities, i.e. the appellants herein ought to be directed to consider the prayer of the respondent No. 1 to re-fix his pension in accordance with the provisions of the ROP Rules, 2010. Facilitating the above, the observations of the learned Single Judge that the pension of the respondent No. 1 ought to be fixed with reference to the pay scale of Rs. 54600/- is hereby set aside. Facilitating the above, the observations of the learned Single Judge that the pension of the respondent No. 1 ought to be fixed with reference to the pay scale of Rs. 54600/- is hereby set aside. Consequently, the direction to pay interest on the accrued amount @ 9%per annum also stands interfered with. 27. We have taken note of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that accepting the claim of the appellant would open the flood gates and deem it appropriate to note herein that such apprehension does not appear to be founded on any valid basis. We say so firstly, because as per the materials placed before us, no other pensioner, save and accept, the respondent No. 1 here, is before the Court agitating the matter. Secondly, pension being in the nature of monetary claim, whether a fresh claim, at this point of time, by any other pensioner would be admissible in the eyes of law due to the law of limitation applicable in the matter is also a pertinent question which would have a relevant bearing on such claim. These issues will have to be addressed with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. 28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction upon the appellants to re-fix the pension of the respondent No. 1 in the light of the observations made here-in-above, by taking into account, the mandate of the ROP Rules, 2010, OMs dated 05-05-2017 and 20-12-2017 as well as the communications dated 02-03-2022 and 05-09- 2022. The outcome of the process be intimated to the respondent No. 1 in writing. The above exercise be carried out and completed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Once the pension of the respondent No. 1 is fixed/ re-fixed as per the direction of this Court, the appellants as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein shall do the needful for facilitating the release of the amount due and payable to the respondent No. 1, including the arrear amount, if any, without undue delay. In the meantime, the appellants to continue to pay the admitted pension to the respondent No. 1. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There would be no order as to cost.