JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. A harassed widow, who has already suffered on account of death of her husband, having met an indifferent treatment in the hands of the respondents with respect to payment of post death retiral benefits of her husband/family pension, has invoked extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] by means of the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to determine revised family pension and pay difference thereof since 4.3.1991 till date and pay her along with arrears.
2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner's husband Late [ENTITY] was appointed as Revenue Inspector in [ENTITY] and after rendering service of more than 30 years, died on 3.3.1991. The respondents determined family pension at Rs. 480/- per month and started payment thereof in July 1991 though with effect from 4.3.1991. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.3.1988 passed in [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. directed Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika to pay similar amount of pension including dearness allowance and family pension etc. as admissible to the State Government's employee or the employees of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika since 2.7.1981. It was clarified that the relief would not extend to payment of gratuity. The matter went in appeal before the Apex Court, which remanded the matter vide judgment dated 9.8.1988 passed in [CASE NUMBER], permitting the parties to address High Court on the remaining points which they intend to raise in the matter. On remand, the aforesaid matter was again decided by a Division Bench vide judgment dated 19.2.1996 reported in [PRECEDENT] and this Court issued following directions to Allahabad Nagar Mahapalika:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we direct the respondents to pay the dearness allowances to the petitioners at par with the employees of Municipal Corporation, Kanpur immediately as envisaged in G.O. No. 866A/AA-NA-V1 0.7.84-1OK/19 dated 28th February, 1984 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. We further direct the respondent to pay the pension also to the petitioners at par with the employees of the State (Municipal Corporation, Kanpur) within 4 months failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 13% per annum
3. It is true that though the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment were confined to the petitioners in that case, but the issue decided therein applies to all similarly placed employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Consequently, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting to pay family pension on the basis of revised pay scale in the light of the judgment of this Court in [ENTITY] (supra) but having failed to get any response from the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit, which is sworn by Sri [ENTITY], Addl. Municipal Commissioner, [ENTITY]. He has not disputed entitlement of the employees of Nagar Nigam regarding revised dearness allowance, pension and family pension as held by this Court in [ENTITY] (supra), but what has been said is that [ENTITY] passed a resolution in September' 2001 requesting the State Government to bear the expenditure but the same has been declined by the State Government. It is further said that the petitioner had filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking a similar relief, but the same has been dismissed on 122007 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
5. The petitioner, in her rejoinder affidavit, has stated that she did not file any writ petition earlier. On the contrary, the [CASE NUMBER] was filed by one [ENTITY]. Against the judgment dated 7.2.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, dismissing his writ petition, he filed a [CASE NUMBER], which was allowed by the Division Bench on 12.3.2007 setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge and remitting the matter the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits afresh. A copy of the Government Order dated 23.12.1997 has also been placed on record as Annexure RA-2, which provides that minimum family pension amount should be 1275/- per month. It is also said that another [CASE NUMBER] [PRECEDENT]. involving a similar issue has been decided by this Court following [ENTITY] (Supra).
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the issue is already settled by this Court in [ENTITY] (supra) and in view thereof the petitioner was entitled for dearness allowance and family pension on revised rates, but despite the judgment having been rendered by this Court more than a decade back and even several representations made by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the respondents till date and the petitioner is being paid family pension presently at the rate of Rs. 966/- per month, which is ex facie inadequate and insufficient for even bare sustenance of herself and her children, hence, is violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. He contended that pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the employee after rendering service for a particular length with the employer. It amounts to deferred wages payable after retirement to the employee or to the family of the employee after his death in accordance with rules in recognition of his/her long service.
7. On behalf of the respondents, though entitlement of the petitioner for revised rate of family pension is not disputed, but it is said that due to poor financial condition of [ENTITY], and, its proposal having been turned down by the State Government, it is not possible to pay revised family pension to the petitioner.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that claim of the petitioner for revised family pension and her entitlement for the same is not disputed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 as is apparent from para-6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced as under:
6. It is stated that for relief sought by the petitioner the [ENTITY] has already passed the resolution No, 49 dated 18.09.2001 requesting the state Government to bear the expenditure but the same was stayed by State Government vide Government vide order dated 03.02.2004
7. It is stated that the [ENTITY] has been recommended for the relief sought by the petitioner through it resolution dated 18.09.2001 but the same was stayed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 03.02.2004.
9. The only reason for non payment appears to be the alleged lack of funds and financial scarcity & with the respondents No. 2 and 3 and refusal by the State Government for bearing financial burden. Whether this can be a ground to deny a right to the petitioner to get revised family pension is the (sic) question to be considered hereat.
10. Pension and retiral benefits of an employee or his family is a right and cannot be said to be bounty is now well settled. The Apex Court, in [PRECEDENT] held as follows:
pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. (Para 20).
In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from underserved want was recognized and as a first steps pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The guid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered not master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount. (Para 22).
Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. (Para 28).
Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is no only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance 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 or for service rendered. (Para 29).
(emphasis added)
11. That being so, non payment of pension or family pension to an employee or his family in accordance with law to the extent he/she is entitled amounts to denial of right to earn livelihood enshrined under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The expression 'right to life' in [SECTION] of the [ACT] does not denote a mere physical or animal existence. The 'right to life' includes 'right to live with human dignity'. In [PRECEDENT] it was held that 'right to life' enshrined under [SECTION] means something, more than bare survival or animal existence. The Court referred to it earlier decision in [PRECEDENT] where payment of very small subsistence allowance to an employee during suspension was held wholly insufficient to sustain his living and, was held to be violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
12. For the purpose of payment of due wages necessary for (sic) sustenance or minimum wages, the financial capacity of the employer has not been held to be a valid consideration by [ACT] Bench of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT]. In [PRECEDENT], the Court held that 'right to life' included right to family pension and right to earn livelihood under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In [ENTITY] (supra) also a similar defence appears to have been taken by Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad (now [ENTITY]) which has been considered by the Court in para-17 of the judgment and has been rejected.
13. A similar argument earlier was also raised on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Kanpur before this Court in [PRECEDENT]. decided on 6.12.2005 and was rejected, holding:
Similarly financial crunch or shortage of funds would not be a valid defence for the State where it is bound to discharge its duties which are statutory or constitutional is also the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and The [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], para 92, 93 and 99.
14. Thus, retiral benefits are not bounty but a right earned by the employer and being deferred wages payable to a Government servant in lieu of considerable length of service rendered by an employee to the employer cannot be denied on the ground of financial scarcity or lack of funds.
15. The respondents have admitted that the complaint of the petitioner was found to be genuine and they resolved as long back as on 18.9.2001 for payment thereof by requesting the State Government to bear the expenditure but the State Government did not care to bore the said liability. The question as to whether the State Government was justified in refusing to bear the expenditure or not is not relevant for the purpose of the present case, since, in my view, the husband of the petitioner being employee of a statutory authority, a local body like [ENTITY], it was the responsibility of respondents No. 2 and 3 to discharge its burden with respect to salary, wages or pension of its employees and the fact that it was not extended financial help by the State Government or somebody else cannot be a reason justifying non payment of the aforesaid dues to its employees.
16. Once the respondents found in 2001 that the employees like petitioner were entitled for revised pension, there was no reason for not paying the same immediately thereafter or within a reasonable period thereafter. Moreover non payment of any amount by revising family pension even after filing of this Writ petition in 2006 is clearly and apparently arbitrary and discriminatory. It is strange that the respondents felt satisfied by paying a (sic) sum of Rs. 966/- per month to the petitioner towards family pension as if the same would be sufficient for sustenance of herself and her children. Judicial cognizance can be taken of the fact that about Rs. 32/- per day, which the petitioner is being paid towards family pension, can not be sufficient even to bear two times meal for a single person during these days, what to say of a family which consisted of more than one person. The attitude of the respondents by not resolving the problem of arranging funds and making payment towards pension to the retired employees or their family in the light of the judgment of this Court in [ENTITY] (supra) cannot be appreciated and must be contemned in strongest words.
17. It is true that ultimate direction contained in [ENTITY] (supra) was with respect to the petitioners in that case, but the law laid down therein is a judgment in rem, applicable to all the employees of [ENTITY] similarly situated and it was not expected from a statutory body like [ENTITY] not to extend benefit of the said judgment to all similarly placed persons on its own and instead to compel those persons to approach the Court, obtain order and thereafter, it would act upon. A statutory body or the State Government is expected to act as a model employer. Once on a particular legal aspect dealing with service condition of the employees, the matter is decided by a Court of law, such body is expected to implement the same without forcing its all the employees similarly placed to approach the Court individually as that would amount not only to multiply litigation wasting avoidable public time and money but would also be against all spirit of a 'Welfare State' with which the respondents are expected to work.
18. In [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court observed that the State should be a model employer, should not exploit employees nor take advantage of helplessness of either unemployed persons or the persons concerned as the case may be. The dictum is fully applicable to the present case also where a destitute widow has been forced to approach the Court of law for enforcement of her legal right of receiving family pension on revised scale, which has not been heeded by the respondents despite the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court as long back as in 1996. In [PRECEDENT], the Court held:
As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and conduct with its employees.
In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise and fix family pension of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in [ENTITY] (supra) within a period of four months and continue to pay current the amount as determined above as and when it falls due. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the arrears of family pension at the rate of 8% with effect from 22.9.2006, i.e., the date of filing of the writ petition till the said amount is paid. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rupees ten thousand payable by respondents No. 2 and 3.