JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, Acting C.J.

1. A question of universal importance revolving round the role of employer, more particularly the State Government to grant 'pension' to its retired employees is involved in this case. Several learned counsel assisted the Court in this case without any particular reference to background facts of the case at hand. The problem is of wide amplitude and grievances factually are more or less the same. After rendering years of service the employer finds from records that the employee has reached a particular age and he should retire. Immediate consequence of these is reduction in the payment made to him by the employer. Thereafter what the employee gets is normally called pension. Factual matrix as indicated above only assists in dealing with broader issues involved.

2. A political society which has a goal of setting up of a welfare State, would introduce and has in fact introduced as a welfare measure wherein the retiral benefit is grounded on consideration of State obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age, but the evolving concept of social security is a later day de