Govt. Pensioners'' Association vs State of Tripura

N.G. Das, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner which is a registered Association, namely, Government Pensioners'' Association, Tripura having its Registration No. 228/75 prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the Dear-ness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners.

I have heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

A detailed narration of the facts set-forth in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit is not necessary as in view of the admitted facts the real question which calls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Government of Tripura is under obligation to pay Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to Central Government pensioners and also to clear up the dues.

Therefore, to appreciate the contentions canvassed at the bar by learned Counsel for the parties I will refer briefly the circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition.

The case of the Petitioner is that the beneficiaries of the Petitioner-Association are all governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted by the Government of Tripura and in view of subsequent adoption of the provisions of Notification No. 42(30)-P & PW/89-E dated 22nd January, 1991 defining Dearness Relief the pensioners of the Government of Tripura are entitled to get Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners subject to such condition as the State Government may specify from time to time. It is stated that Dearness Relief as defined by Rule 55A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 means relief against price rise to be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of Dearness Relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time. The grievance of the Petitioner-Association is that even after adoption of the amended Rule 55A by the Government of Tripura by its Notification dated 2nd July, 1992 vide No. F8(4)-Fin(G)/79-n, the latter has not yet passed necessary order allowing the pensioners to combat the rise in the cost of living. As for, from 1.1.91 to 1.1.92 the State Government allowed an increase of 4% only whereas the rise was shown to be 20% and the Central Government allowed it. It is stated that the State Government cannot avoid the ''Rate'' (in the amended Rules) which has been allowed by the Central Government as the rate has direct nexus with the National Consumers Price Index and the principle being "Compensating the pensioners for rise in cost of living beyond average consumers price index 608". It has been further stated that the State Government is still 42% behind the Central Government rate as on 1.4.95. The pensioners of the Government of Tripura are thus discriminated against the pensioners of the Central Government. It is further stated that the Government of Tripura received necessary Central assistance for clearing up the Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners and even though the Petitioner-Association ventilated their grievances by filing representation after representation to the Respondents, the latter did not respond favourably. Hence, this writ petition.

The Respondents resisted the writ petition by filing a joint affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been contended, inter alia, that this writ petition is not maintainable as even though the Government of Tripura adopted the Notification of the Government of India, namely, Notification No. 42(30)- P & PW/89-E dated 22nd January, 1991 (Anenxure-13), this acceptance does not confer any right upon any employee/pensioner to claim it at any point of time ignoring the financial ability and capability of the State Government at a particular point of time ignoring the liabilities and responsibilities towards large Section of the people of the State. It is, however, stated that the Government of Tripura already decided that it would pay the Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief to the concerned Petitioner/employees when the fund would be available. It has been further averred that the State of Tripura is solely dependent upon the Central assistance and as such the State Government is unable to pay Dearness Relief/Dearness Allowance unless adequate fund is made available to it by the Central Government as the State Government adopted it in principle to pay the Dearness Relief at the rate of Dearness Allowance to the pensioners/family pensioners. It is stated that though the State Government is very much sympathetic to its employee, but it is unable to clear up the Dearness Relief because of the financial constraints.

It is further contended that the State Government did not accept the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission in toto. However, the Government of Tripura is following the principle of sanctioning Dearness Relief to its pensioners at the same rates as are sanctioned to the serving employees in the shape of Dearness Allowance from time to time.

The further contention of the Respondents is that the State Government receives assistance from the Central Government through the award of the Finance Commission and Central Plan Assistance as determined by the Planning Commission. The Finance Commission makes recommendation regarding the distribution between Union and the States of the net proceeds of taxes to be divided between them and the allocation between States of the respective shares of such proceeds. They also recommend the principles which should govern grants-in-aid of the revenue of the States out of the consolidated fund of India. But successive Finance Commissions did not meet out a fair treatment to the State to meet its legitimate requirements. It is stated that in accordance with the award of the Finance Commission the State Government receives assistance for the plan programme through the Central Plan Assistance. 90% of which is grant and the balance 10% is loan payable by the State Government at prescribed rates of interest. It is contended that the Finance Commissioner did not record the State of Tripura as a special category of State. On the other hand, the Ninth Finance Commission adopted for Tripura and other Special Category States the same norm as for other States disregarding the constraints the State of Tripura is confronted with. It is further contended that the Tenth Finance Commission has grossly under-estimated the expenditure of the State. The State Government asked for a total devolution of Rs. 4,952.26 crores in the form of share of taxes and grant-in-aid to meet the revenue expenditure during this five year period but the Commission recommended only Rs. 2,775.85 crores. The answering Respondents have also depicted a picture showing a good number of items where huge amount of expenditure is involved and as a consequence thereof the State Government is to divert a part of the Central Plan Assistance to Non-Plan Expenditure but that also cannot be done beyond certain limit. However, despite acute financial constraints the State Government sanctioned five instalments of Dearness Allowance/Dearness Relief for the year 1993-94 & 1994-95 raising the rate to 90% on 1.10.95. In view of these financial constraints, it is submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed.

Now before entering into the rival contentions it may be appropriate here to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of the State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, which is extracted as under:

Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govt. to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.

In the instant case, in view of the admitted position of the case, the question which actually needs to be determined is whether the State Government which is mainly dependent on the Central assistance is capable of clearing up the Dearness Relief to its pensioners upto the rate which the Central Government has already paid to its employees. The controversy regarding Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief does not call for any discussion as it is an admitted fact that the Government of Tripura by its Notification dated 2nd July, 1992 contained in Annexure-13 adopted the provisions of Notification No. 42(30)-P&PW/89-E dated 22.1.1991 of the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions (Department of Pension & P. W.), Government of India. It is also not disputed that Dearness Allowance means Relief as defined in Rule 55-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid adoption learned Advocate General at certain stage before final hearing of the case submitted that so far he knew the Government of Tripura was inclined to give the reliefs sought for in the writ petition to its pensioners. In making the submission learned Advocate General took time for discussing the matter with the Government so that the writ petition might be disposed of with contentment to all. The submission of the learned Advocate General was recorded on 25.11.96 and time as sought for by him was granted fixing the next date on 10.12.96 when Mr. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Government of Tripura already received necessary fund for payment of the Dearness Relief. Therefore, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Advocate General the case was adjourned to 10.12.96 requiring the Finance Secretary, Government of Tripura or any one on his behalf to be present in the court to enlighten the court in respect of the amount received by the Government of Tripura under the head ''Pension''. The case was, therefore, listed on 16.12.96. On this date learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Tenth Finance Commission allocated a sum of Rs. 39.98 crores under the head ''Pension'' for the financial year 1995-96 and this amount was also received by the Government of Tripura. Although learned Advocate General did not dispute about this fact, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it was considered expedient that some officer from the Finance Department, Government of Tripura should swear an affidavit stating what was the actual amount spent during the Financial Year 1995-96. The case was, therefore, adjourned and ultimately the Finance Commissioner, Government of Tripura was directed by the order dated 3.3.1997 to swear an affidavit as to whether the Government of Tripura received the amount which was recommended by the Tenth Finance Commission under the head Pension'' for the financial year 1995-96.

Pursuant to this order the Finance Commissioner, Government of Tripura swore an affidavit depicting a table which would indicate the estimate made by the Finance Commission for Tripura. It is as under:

NON-PLAN REVENUE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT BEFORE DEVOLUTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Rs. Lakhs) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item Forcast period -------------------------------------------------------- 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total 1995-00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. RECEIPTS A. Total tax revenue 5451 6222 7105 8073 9126 35977 B. Non-tax revenue 1. Interest receipts (a) State Electricity Boards 0 0 0 0 0 0 (b) Road Transport Undertakings 0 0 0 0 0 0 (c) Others 128 128 128 128 128 640 2. Dividends 306 306 306 306 306 1530 3. Irrigation (Net) (Major, Medium & Minor) -175 -155 -130 -100 -66 -626 4. Forest 373 399 425 451 473 2121 5. Royalty from Mines & Minerals 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Others 1349 1571 1231 1375 1639 7165 Total : B 1981 2249 1960 2160 2480 10830 C. Non-Plan Grants 668 720 773 826 876 3863 Total-I(A + B + C) 8100 9191 9838 13870 15257 63620 II. NON-PUN REVENUE EXPENDITURE 1. Interest Payments 10421 11463 12609 13870 15257 63620 2. Police 4907 5273 5644 6016 6362 28202 3. Pensions 3998 4296 4598 4901 5183 22976 4. Social Security 1260 1354 1449 1545 1634 7242 5. Education (General) (a) Elementary 5616 6038 6463 6889 7285 32294 (b) Others 6712 7212 7719 8229 8702 38574 6. Medical & Public Health 2022 2193 2369 2549 2721 11854 7. Roads 996 1339 1681 2024 2366 8406 8. Buildings 1390 1499 1609 1720 1823 8041 9. Relief on account of Natural Calamity 137 122 129 135 140 663 10. Others 12631 13645 14597 15317 16112 72302 11. Committed Liability 6110 5474 6832 7180 7485 34081 TOTAL II 56203 60908 65699 70375 75070 328255 III. NON-PUN REVENUE SURPLUS/DEFICIT -48103 -51717 -55861 -59316 -62588 -277585 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is however, available from the report of the Tenth Finance Commission (page-126).

The table quoted above will indicate that a total sum of Rs. 22976 lakhs was estimated for the period 1995-2000. The break up shown in the aforesaid table clearly indicates that a sum of Rs. 39.98 crores was allocated for the financial year 1995-96. But the affidavit sworn by the Finance Commissioner does not clearly indicate whether the sum of Rs. 39.98 crores was actually received by the Government of Tripura for the financial year 1995-96. He however, did not state clearly that this amount was not received by the Government of Tripura. Therefore, such a statement amounts to admission. Moreover, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on 16.12.96 when the matter came up before the court, the learned Advocate General admitted that this sum was received by the Government of Tripura. During pendency of this writ petition, learned Advocate General obtained a report from the Accountant General, Triprua (Annexure-R/1) and placed reliance upon it which shows that an amount of Rs. 35,94,54,307.26 paise was booked under the Major Head 2071-Pension and other Retirement benefits during the year 1995-96. The report of the Accountant General contained in Annexure-R/2 dated 31.12.96 further shows that an amount of Rs. 23,85,37, 214.68 paise was booked under M.H. 2071 upto 10/96 and anticipated expenditure for the remaining period i.e. 11/96 to 3/97 will be Rs. 19,74,82,786.00. The above figures given by the Accountant General, however do not clearly indicate what was the actual amount spent during the financial year 1995-96 under the head ''Pension'' only. The figures shown in the aforesaid Annexures were booked for pension and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the amount shown by the Accountant General which is subject to verification and acceptance by the Reserve Bank cannot be accepted to be the actual amount spent under the head Tension'' only. Of course, it has been mentioned in the report (Annexure-R/1) that the figures shown included pension and other retirement benefits.

However, the additional affidavit sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Finance, Government of Tripura shows that an amount of Rs. 35,94,54,307.26 paise was paid towards pension during the financial year 1995-96. As already stated the Finance Commission sanctioned an amount of Rs. 39.98 crores for the same financial year. This amount is admitted to have been received. Therefore, on calculation it is found that an amount viz. Rs. 4,03,456.93 remained. It may, therefore, be advantageous to quote the statement made by the Deputy Secretary which is as under:

as per report of the Accountant General an amount of Rs. 35,94,54,307.26 paise only have been paid towards the pension during the financial year 1995-96. The Finance Commission earmarked an amount of Rs. 39.98 crores for the same year.

It has, however, been stated that as per the report of the Accountant General upto October, 1996 an amount of Rs. 23,85,37,214.68 paise was booked under the Major Head-2071-Pension and other retirement benefits and that the Accountant General anticipated that from November, 1996 to March 1997 another amount of Rs. 19,74,82,786.00 would be required. The total amount, therefore, comes to Rs. 43,60,200.00 and odd for the whole financial year 1996-97 to pay towards pension. Quoting the figures allocated for the period of five years it is stated that there will be deficit in the year 1996-97 itself and the deficit is bound to increase in the next three years. It has been stated that during the year 1995-96 the Commission estimated a deficit of Rs. 481.03 crores against which the actual flow to the State Government was Rs. 447.36 crores and as such there would be a deficit of Rs. 33.67 crores. As regards the financial year 1996-97 it has been stated that there would be deficit of Rs. 27.17 crores. This additional counter-affidavit has not, however, elaborated as to how the deficit would occur.

To repel the contentions of the additional affidavit sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura the Petitioner filed a re-joinder affidavit wherein it has been quite categorically stated that the information obtained from the Accountant General does not indicate the actual amount spent under a particular Head of Account. It is true that the report of the Accountant General does not indicate the month-wise break up of the amount booked under pension and other retirement benefits. It cannot be disputed that to come to a correct conclusion it is essential to get the month-wise and minor head-wise break up of the expenditure against the amount booked upto October, 1996.

It has already been stated that the amount booked under ''Pension'' by the Accountant General is subject to audit and that after verification with the actual expenditure it would be certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General whereafter it would be accepted by the Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner has, therefore, annexed a statement under Annexure-''X'' showing that the amount which was booked in April, 1996 was Rs. 47.00 lakhs only and for the subsequent months the amounts were Rs. 2.54 crores, Rs. 4.63 crores and Rs. 5.95 crores. It is stated that increasing trend is a result of payment of arrear Dearness Relief, Gratuity and commuted pension to the new pensioners. Thus, in the month of October, 1996 the amount came down to Rs. 3 crores. Calculating in this way it was shown that during next five months the possible amount to be booked under the Head would be less than Rs. 3 crores except the Dearness Relief released in the month of February, 1997. It has been stated that on a rational calculation the anticipated expenditure during next 5 months till the end of the year was likely to be around Rs. 12.00 crores to Rs. 13.00 crores. Thus, the total amount for the year 1996-97 was likely to be around Rs. 36.80 crores i.e. a surplus of nearly Rs. 6.00 crores. The Petitioner also annexed the statement under Annexure-X.

Here it may be mentioned that gratuity and pension are the distinctive liability to the State Government and as such commutation is not included in the grants made for pension. The Government of India has also issued a clarification in this respect by O.M. No. 28/10/95-P & PW(B), dated 25.10.96. It has been further stated in the re-joinder affidavit that the Tenth Finance Commission under Non-Plan Revenue Expenditure provided for "social security" in Sl. No. 4, just after pensions in Sl. No. 3. It is stated that the pension to the legislators is provided from the allocation made under a "social security". Therefore, the actual expenditure from the allocation made under the Head ''Pension'' is substantially less than what is stated in the affidavit sworn by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura. It has been contended that the calculation will show that out of the total expenditure under the major Head "2071, expenditure under the minor head 102-Com. Value, 108-Pension to the Legislators cover 8.3% of the total expenditure under the major head. Thus, taking this ratio, expenditure towards pension for the financial year 1995-96 would be Rs. 35.95 crores and not Rs. 35.95 crores as stated in para 2 of the additional affidavit. Having calculated in this manner the Petitioner has shown that there would be a surplus of Rs. 6.03 crores.

Apart from this it has been stated that the actual position of the State budget for the financial year 1995-96 is that the budget estimate was tabled in Tripura Assembly with a deficit of Rs. 180.76 crores and it was accordingly voted. The revised budget was placed in the Assembly showing an amount of Rs. 25.99 crores as savings without any significant change in the revised total revenue expenditure. The extract of the relevant portion of the annual financial statement of 1996-97 is quoted below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Expendi- Actuals Budget Revised Budget ture Heads 1994-93 Estimate Estimate Estimate 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total State Expenditure (Net) i + ii + iii 16308543 18504938 18113942 20171589 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Closing (-)227728 (-)1807588 (+)259878 - Balance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Total 16080815 16697350 18373820 20171589 Expenditure ----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is stated that after conclusion of the financial year an amount of Rs. 47.43 crores was shown as savings instead of a deficit of Rs. 180.76 crores shown for the budget estimate for 1995-96. In this context it has been contended further that the statement that the actual flow to the State Government was Rs. 447.30 crores against the estimated deficit of Rs. 481.03 crores is a misleading statement. It is stated that the actual position is that the estimated deficit of Rs. 481.03 crores for 1995-96 was a pre-devolution Non-Plan Revenue deficit as estimated for the project period from 1995-2000. The total pre-devolution, Non-Plan Revenue deficit for the 5 years from 1995-2000 was estimated at Rs. 2775.85 crores by the Ninth Finance Commission. After devolution of Rs. 2325.85 crores from the divisible pool the total non-plan revenue deficit for the 5 years was estimated at Rs. 488.78 crores. The Finance Commission, it is stated, provided for Tripura a total of Rs. 2879.26 crores including the Non-Plan deficit of Rs. 488.78 crores. It has also been contended that the statement of the Respondents that allotment of fund by the Central Government is not always at par with the estimated recommendation of the Finance Commission is a misleading statement.

The statements made in this rejoinder affidavit remains uncontroverted. Even during arguments on the last day when only Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Advocate junior to the learned Advocate General was available did not raise any controversy in respect of this statement. On the other hand, when the calculation was made in the open court showing that an amount of Rs. 4.0345793 crores remained un-spent and that an approximate amount of Rs. 64 crores would be necessary for the remaining period of the year, Mr. Ghosh did not raise any dispute about this. Here it may be re-called that on 16.12.1996 when the matter came up before this Court learned Advocate General conceded that an amount of Rs. 39.98 crores was allocated by the Tenth Finance Commission and the said amount was also received by the State Government.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has to be seen whether the contention of the Petitioner that the Government of Tripura is 42% behind the Central Government rate as on 1.4.1995.

Alike the Petitioner, the Respondents in their sworn affidavit also depicted a chart showing the comparable benefits by the State and the Central Government. It may, therefore, be advantageous at this stage to quote the chart depicted by the Respondents in their counter-affidavit which is as under:

----------------------------------------------------------- Sanctioned by the Sanctioned by the Central Govt. State Govt. Date of % of instal- Date of % of instal- effect ment (highest) effect ment(high- slab) est slab) ----------------------------------------------------------- 1.1.1988 18 1.4.1988 18 1.7.1988 23 1.4.1989 23 1.1.1989 29 1.4.1990 29 1.7.1989 34 1.1.1991 34 1.1.1990 38 1.7.1990 43 1.1.1992 38 1.10.1992 43 1.1.1991 51 1.2.1993 51 1.7.1991 60 1.8.1993 60 1.1.1992 71 1.5.1994 71 1.7.1992 83 1.4.1995 83 1.1.1993 92 1.10.1995 92 1.7.1993 97 - - 1.1.1994 104 - - 1.7.1994 114 - - 1.1.1995 125 1.7.1995 136 -----------------------------------------------------------

It would be quite apparent from the chart quoted above that on 1.4.1995 the State Government paid upto 83% whereas the Central Govt. paid upto 125% on 1.1.1995. It is, therefore, clear that the State Government is lagging behind 42%. This being the admitted position of the case Mr. Ghosh learned Counsel for the Respondents was asked to state the period within which the Government would be in a position to clear up the dues. This was felt necessary as on certain date prior to the final date of hearing learned Advocate General conceded that the Government is agreeable to clear up the dues as per the intervals granted by this Court in its judgment dated 7.2.1996 passed in Civil Rule No. 525/95. But Mr. Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the case of the Petitioner cannot be compared with that of the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 525/1995. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas that the pensioners are admittedly old men and they are not only physically and mentally crippled but financially too. Therefore, their case stands apart. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as it cannot be denied that the pensioners are not only old men but they are also physically, mentally and financially crippled and hence their case needs special treatment. The term ''Pension'' has been judicially defined as a stated allowances or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender-of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. Therefore, it is a debt to the Government.

The Supreme Court in its judgment viz. D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), observed:

...The basic framework of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and especially provide security from cradle to grave. This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism.... After the education is completed, socialism aims at equality in pursuit of excellence in the chosen avocation without let or hindrance of caste, colour, sex or religion and with full opportunity to reach the top not thwarted by any considerations of status, social or otherwise.... Then comes the old age in the life of everyone, be he a monarch or a mahatma, a worker, or a parish. The old age overtakes each one, death being the fulfilment of life providing freedom from bondage. But here socialism aims at providing an economic security to those who have rendered unto society what they were capable of doing when they were fully equipped with their mental and physical prowess. In the fall of life the State shall ensure to the citizens a reasonably decent standard of life, medical aid, freedom from want, freedom from fear and the enjoyable leisure, relieving the boredom and the humility of dependence in old age. This is what Article 41 aims when it enjoins the State to secure public assistance in old age, sickness and disablement. It was such a socialist State which the Preamble directs the centres of power Legislative, Executive and Judiciary to strive to set up.

Proceeding further the Supreme Court observed that if pensioners form a class, their compensation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment.

I, therefore, see no reason why the relief sought for in this writ petition should not be allowed. The petition is allowed and accordingly Respondents are directed to pay its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners.

Now as regards payment of the dues Mr. Biswas, in view of the calculations made on the basis of the datas, he contended that there is no rationale to discriminate the pensioners'' Association against the pensioners of the Central Government. In this context, it is further submitted by Mr. Biswas that the Government of Tripura accepted the recommendation contained in the report of the Commission for payment of Grants-in-Aid of the Revenues under the substantive provisions of Article 275(1) of the Constitution towards meeting their non-plan revenue gap. Mr. Biswas has, however, submitted that the Respondents may be allowed a period of 3 months to clear up the 42% of the unpaid Dearness Relief.

It is clear from the foregoing discussions that the State Government i.e. the Respondents defaulted in making payment of Dearness Relief promptly. It has also been quite clear from the discussions made above that the State Government received the amount and hence it is ill-behaved to say that the dues will be cleared up when it will be possible. The writ petition was filed on 5.5.1995 and it could have been disposed of at least on 16.12.1996 to which date the case was adjourned on the basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate General on 10.12.1996. At certain stage of the case it was submitted that some pensioners passed away during pendency of the case. Therefore, I consider it appropriate that the dues should be paid within a reasonable time and accordingly I order and direct the Respondents to pay 20% of the unpaid Dearness Relief out of 42% latest by 22nd June, 1997 minus the amount, if any, is paid towards Dearness Relief during pendency of the writ petition and the balance of 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22nd August, 1997. Keeping in view of the hardship which the pensioners are passing through at this old age I hope that the Government of Tripura shall not cause delay in clearing up the dues within the time limit I have mentioned above.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. But under the circumstances there would be no order as to costs.