M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and three sets of lawyers appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The matter relates to payment of retirement benefits including pension. The respondents are contesting the matter as if pension is a charity or bounty or gratuitous payment. The concept of pension is now well-known and has been clarified by the Supreme Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it a gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer as it is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past services. It is, in fact, in the nature of social security plan to provide for the december of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the social economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in 1955 in Godda college. After serving for about 38 years the petitioner retired on 7.2.93 as University Professor from the said college. After retirement the petitioner was getting pension but in August, 2001