Jagdish Sahai, J. - (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 petitioner's 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 petitioner's salary at Rs. 210/- p.m. from 1-4-1947 and is proceeding to fix the petitioner's pension on that basis. The petitioner's 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 petitioner's 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 British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right for which such pension or grant may have been substituted." A pension is also not attachable because of the provisions of Section 11 of the Pensions Act which runs as follows: "No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court in Part A States and Part C States, at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction or a decree or order of any such Court. This section applies in Part A States and Part C States also to pensions granted or continued, after the separation of Burma from India, by the Government of Burma." These provisions clearly show that the pension of a person is not his property and he has no vested right over it. It is given by way of a bounty tor past services mainly to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily needs. Section 5 of the Pensions Act which is reproduced below clearly provides that for the claim of pension the remedy lies only by way of a representation to the Collector of the district or Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government: "5. Any person having a claim relating to any such pension or grant may prefer such claim to the Collector of the District or Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government; and such Collector, Deputy Commissioner or other officer shall dispose of such claim in accordance with such rules as the Chief Revenue authority may, subject to the general control of the appropriate Government, from time to time prescribe in this behalf." In this connection the provisions of Section 6 of the Pensions Act should also be noticed. The said section runs as follows: "6. A Civil Court, otherwise competent to try the same, shall take cognizance of any such claim upon receiving a certificate from such Collector, Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised in that behalf that the case may be so tried, but shall not make any order or decree in any suit whatever by which the liability of Government to pay any such pension or grant as aforesaid is affected direct-ly or indirectly." The provisions of the Pensions Act especially those of Sections 4, 5 and 6 clearly reveal that a claim to pension cannot be enforced in a court of law and the proper remedy is to make departmental representations. Even if a civil court, upon receiving a certificate from the Collector or Deputy Commissioner under Section 5, is authorised to try a case it would havo no right to order or decree any suit the result of which would be to make the Government liable to pay the pension directly or indirectly. For these reasons it appears to me that the pensioner cannot claim pension as of right or enforce it by means ot an action in a court of law. I have already said above that a pension is nnt attachable which would be if it belonged to the pensioner as of right.;