( 1. ) THE Supreme Courts observation and hope expressed in Deokinandans case 1984-II L. L. J. 318 that in future the employees who serve the Government would not be exposed in the fall of their life to such a costly and unending litigation to claim what is justly due to them on the date on which the bond of service is snapped, stands wholly belied and contradicted by the respondents in this petition. As back as in 1983 in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983-I L. L. J. 104 posing a question what is pension, and what are the goals of pension, and what public interest or purpose if any, it seeks to serve; the highest Court proceeded to answer the same inter alia that pension is not only a compensation for service rendered in the past but it has 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. Article 41 obligates the State within the limits of its economic capacity and development to make effective provisions amongst others for assistance in case of old age, sickness and disablement. Pension provisions are to some extent the legislative response to the Constitutional expectation.

( 2. ) THE petitioner retired from service as Sub-Engineer on 3rd November, 1980. His pension was fixed at Rs. 168/- per month. It is not disputed that his pension was fixed as Rs. 168/- per month vide letter dated 27th June, 1981 issued by the Accountant General. M. P. It is also not disputed that this amount of pension as well as gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner as the A. G. M. P. Gwalior and the Treasury Officer, Indore have been informed to withhold the payment of pension and gratuity till settlement of government dues. The respondents seek to justify withholding of pension and gratuity to the petitioner on the ground that, government recovery was due against him and he was advised to settle the same vide letter No. 7683 dated 20th August, 1981. These recoveries pertained to some alleged shortages of tools and plants and store materials during the petitioners incumbency at Itarsi and Hoshangabad where the petitioner was posted. The amount of recovery as shown by the respondent is Rs. 8,632-50. Vide Annexure R-4, 5 and 6 although initially the total amounts shown to be recoverable was Rs. 80,861-65 but, on further inquiry it was found that only Rs. 8,632-50 p. was due from the petitioner. There are exchange of letters between the Executive Engineers posted at Jhabua and Alirajpur proposing the deduction of this amount from the petitioners gratuity and pension. And it was for this reason, that the A. G. M. P. , has withheld the same and no payment orders as such have been issued so far. The petitioner has sworn an affidavit that he was transferred from Itarsi as back as in 1976 ans the charge of Itarsi Sub-Division was handed over by him to one Shri D. C. Jha, his successor in office on 2nd August, 1976. No material was found to be short. The note handing-over charge is filed as Annexure P/l which is further supported by an affidavit. The petitioner was posted in Harda Sub-Division and was transferred therefrom on 23rd June 1980 handing over charge to Shri O. P. Choudhary Sub-Engineer who was appointed as in-charge of the Division. This handing over note of charge is filed as Annexure P/2 by the petitioner and there was no shortage as such either found or reported. The respondents have filed certain documents, after the filing of rejoinder and affidavit, by the petitioner on 27th March, 1985, which itself had become necessary in the light of the return filed by the respondents. The respondent have come out with these documents only after the petitioner had filed his rejoinder supported by an affidavit and the notes of handing over charge. In fact had there been any such shortage, as has been contended by the respondents, the docu