( 1 ) THE petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that he retired from the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a jailer on 10-7-11956 and at the time of his retirement was receiving a salary of Rs. 325/- per mensem, After his retirement his papers were sent for fixation of his pension to the Accountant General, U. P. Under the orders of the Inspector General of Prisons dated 2-2-1951 the petitioners salary was fixed at Rs. 220/- p. m. , with effect from 1-4-1947. There was some dispute between him and the accountant General about the amount at which his pension was to be fixed. He filed a writ petition in this Court which was rejected having become infructuous because the Accountant general had decided the dispute that existed between him and the petitioner. The Accountant General fixed the petitioners salary at Rs. 210/- p. m. from 1-4-1947 and is proceeding to fix the petitioners pension on that basis. The petitioners case is that under Rule 4 (b) of the U. P. Revised Rates or Pay Rules, 1931 and paragraph 10 (2) of the Pay Committee report 1947 he was entitled to a higher salary and his pension should be fixed on the basis of that higher salary. On these facts the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Accountant General, U. P. dated 26-9-1958 (annexure C to the petition ).

( 2 ) I have perused annexure C. Actually that is a letter addressed to the petitioner by the Deputy accountant General, U. P. By this letter the petitioners pension has not been fixed. All that has been done by this letter is that the petitioner has been informed that his salary for the purposes of pension has been considered to be Rs. 210/-per month on 1-4-1947. He was also informed that an anticipatory pension order had already been issued in his favour and a final report has been submitted to the Prison Department and a final pension payment order will be issued as soon as the sanction is received. In my opinion this writ petition cannot be admitted for several reasons. In the first place in my view no one can claim pension as of right and a right to recover a pension is not actionable. The word pension has not been defined anywhere. However, it has been held that it implies I periodical payments of money to a pensioner (see Wasif Ali Mirza v. Karnani Industrial Bank, air 1931 P. C. 160, and Lachmi Narain v. Mukund Singh, ILR 26 All 617. It appears to me that two essentials are necessary in order to constitute a pension: (1) it must be a periodical payment, and (2) it must be a grant not in respect of any right privilege, perquisite or office but on political considerations or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance (see Yadeo v. Jankidas, AIR 1937 Nag 202, Secretary of State v. Khemchand jeychand, ILR 4 Bom 432, Shiv Narain Singh v. Munj Lal, AIR 1934 Lah 881 and Bansi Ram v. Narasingha, AIR 1914 Cal 765. It has been held to be a periodical payment of money for past services (see Municipal Council, salem v. Gururajah Rao, AIR 1935 Mad 249 ). It is a bounty for past services rendered to the public or to the State. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing bis daily wants. It is a mere bounty or gratuity given by the government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services rendered by the pensioner or by some Kinsman or ancestor. (See the law Lexicon of British India by P. R. Iyer, 1940 edition ).

( 3 ) THOSE mentioned above being the attributes of pension it is obvious that it cannot be claimed as of right. Under the provisions of Section 4 of the Pensions Act (Act No. XXIII of 1871) a suit relating to pension is barred. Section 4 runs as follows: "except as hereinafter provided, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the