- (1.) Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued the case at length and submitted that L.P.A. preferred by the applicants is allowed. Thereafter S.L.P. preferred by respondents is also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court despite these orders pension is not paid by the Respondent No.6.
(2.) Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the amount towards the pension which is yet to be paid, shall be paid at the earliest. The Opposite Party No.6 is not present in Court.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that a sizable amount is yet to be paid towards the pension and the whole family of the applicant No.1 is starving.;