A. P. Sen, J.

This is an appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Third Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 19th August 1968, dismissing his suit for declaration.

The Plaintiff claimed

(i) a declaration that he was entitled to pension from the date of his retirement, pensionary benefits like gratuity and other dues specified in the list filed along with the plaint;

(ii) in the alternative, if there was some difficulty in payment of pension and gratuity, then, for a declaration that he be paid anticipatory provisional pension and/or gratuity, under Article 922-A of the Civil Service Regulations and under Section 2 (a) of the New Pension Rules, 1951, and

(iii) a permanent injunction restraining the State Government of Madhya Pradesh from withholding the payment of pension, gratuity and other dues, which were payable to him.

The facts giving rise to the appeal, briefly stated, are that the Plaintiff retired from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer w. e. f. 15th July 1960 and was re-employed on that post from that day, but his services were ultimately terminated w. e. f. 24th April 1962. He applied for his pension and gratuity upon his retirement. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Irriga-tion Branch), at first, accorded sanction for payment of superannuation pension on 17th March 1964, but that sanction was later revoked by him on 20th January 1965, pending the result of a Departmental enquiry started against the Plaintiff on certain charges On 31st August 1966, the Plaintiff commenced the present suit claiming the reliefs indicated above.

The State Government resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. They alternatively pleaded that the question of pension was awaiting the consideration of the Government. Early decision thereon could not be taken, according to them, because fraud and falsification of accounts by the Plaintiff in the Stores of the Irrigation Sub-Division, Jabalpur, were brought to light. The Plaintiff was, accordingly, being prosecuted in Criminal Case Nos. 1042 of 1964 and 20 of 1965, which proceedings were still pending before the Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. The State Government, accordingly, pleaded that they were fully justified in withholding pension when serious charges of falsification of accounts and fraud were there and the prosecutions were pending.

The learned trial Judge has upheld the Defendant's plea that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit was barred and he, accordingly, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The only question involved in the appeal is, whether the suit is barred by Section 4 of the Pensions Act, (Act No. XXIII of 1871). The word 'pension' has not been defined in the Act anywhere. However, it has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that it implies periodical payments of money by Government to the pensioner, [See, Wasif Ali Mirza v. Karnani Industrial Bank LR 58 IA 215. In order to constitute a pension, two essentials are necessary, namely, (i) it must be a periodical payment; and (ii) it must be a grant not in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite or office but on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, [See, Secretary of State v. Khemchand Jeychand IL R4 Bom. 432 (F B); Bansi Ram v. Narasingha AIR 1914 Cal. 765; Shiv Narain Singh v. Muni Lal AIR 1934 Lah. 881; Yadeo v. Jankidas AIR 1937 Nag. 202; State of M.P. v. Pt. Lalita Shankar 1966 MPLJ 949 and Shri Raj Kumar Bikram Bahadur Singh v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. 1959 MPLJ 69]. It is, therefore, settled law that the word 'pension' signifies a periodical allowance or a stipend granted not in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite or status hut on account of past services or particular merits. In other words, 'pension' is a bounty for past service.

So, it follows that pension is a periodical payment of money, which is in the nature of a boun