Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioner, Dashrath Singh, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to pay arrears of pension and to comply with the order dated 5.1.2009 passed by respondent No. 2.

2. Facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under.

3. Petitioner retired from defence service on 31.5.1995 and his pension was determined at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month with effect from 1.6.1995. The pension payment order dated 13.12.1995 shows that pension with effect from 1.6.1995 was determined at enhanced rate of Rs. 425/- upto 31 May, 2000 whereafter it was payable at normal rate, i.e. Rs. 375/- per month. The gratuity was also determined at Rs. 27630/-. The aforesaid pension was paid to petitioner upto 30.6.1999. The system of payment of pension is that it is directly credited in petitioner’s Bank account by Pension Disbursing Authority, i.e. Union Bank of India, Mirzabad, Ghazipur. No pension was credited to petitioner’s account from 1.7.1999 and onwards. Despite petitioner’s several letters, none responded to his request. Hence, this writ petition.

4. This Court required the respondents to disclose reasons, why regular pension has not been paid to the petitioner and who is the person responsible for such extraordinary denial and delay and what action has been taken against such person. This order was passed on 9.11.2009 in the presence of respondents’ counsel Ms. Shiksha Dixit, Advocate, who had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. None responded even thereafter. In the circumstances, this Court passed an order on 14.12.2009 to the following effect.

“Despite time having been granted on 9-11-2009, respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. The matter pertains to payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner which has not been paid for the last 14 years. In the circumstance I direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be present before this Court on 11th January, 2010 to appear personally and to show-cause why counter-affidavit has not been filed by them. However, if the respondents file counter-affidavit by 8th January, 2010 and pay cost of Rs. 5000/-, they need not to appear in person on 11-01-2010.

Ms. Shikha Dixit, shall communicate this order to the respondents for compliance.

Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents within 48 hours.”

5. A counter-affidavit was filed which accompanied four applications, one for condonation of delay in filing counter-affidavit, second for vacation of stay, third to take the counter-affidavit on record alongwith cost and fourth for dismissing the writ petition being devoid of merit. This Court fails to understand as to what was the occasion for filing delay condonation application and stay vacation application inasmuch the order dated 14.12.2009 itself permitted respondents to file counter-affidavit alongwith cost by 8.1.2010 and further there was no stay and hence no occasion for vacation of stay had arisen. These two applications are thoroughly misconceived. The third application prays that counter-affidavit be accepted alongwith cost though it was already permitted by Court’s order dated 14.12.2009. Hence, this application was also superfluous. Now so far as fourth application is concerned, once a counter-affidavit is filed, petitioner is entitled to file rejoinder affidavit and thereafter whether the writ petition has to be dismissed or allowed would be considered after hearing all the parties. All these applications, therefore, are wholly unwarranted and the Court express its serious disapproval of such practice of filing unsolicited and frivolous applications. Learned counsel for respondents could not assign any reason at any point of time.

6. Be that as it may, the case came up before this Court after 14.12.2009 on 29.4.2011, i.e. after more than 16 months. When the matter was taken up, the Court found that respondents had taken a stand th