JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. During his service tenure, petitioner was being paid Secretariat Pay in accordance with law and as per the decisions taken by the respondent-University. Component of Secretariat Pay was reflected in the column of last emoluments drawn by the petitioner while preparing his pension calculation sheet. As per the decisions of the respondent-University in vogue, Secretariat Pay was to be factored while computing petitioner’s pension. Petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2018. Secretariat Pay was not taken into account while fixing his pension. This was purportedly done in view of pendency of a litigation, i.e. Durga Ram Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another, CWPOA No.208/2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 18.10.2022. Petitioner’s pension fixation ordered on 06.09.2019 records a recital that his pension would be subject to change/correction, if any, on account of payment of Secretariat Pay subject to the decision of the Court in the matter. Durga Ram (supra) was allowed on 18.10.2022 with direction to the respondent-University to include Secretariat Pay as part of basic pay for calculation of all types of permissible allowances. Respondent-University was further directed to pay pensionary benefit and to re-fix petitioners’ (therein) pension accordingly. Payment of arrears on that basis, if admissible to the petitioners, were directed to be released to them within three months from the date of the decision. The respondent-University implemented the judgment, but only qua the petitioners therein. Compelled, present petitioner also instituted Dr. Hem Raj Sharma Versus Himachal Pradesh University & Anr., CWP No.4759 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 25.07.2023, seeking applicability of Durga Ram (supra). The writ petition was disposed of on 25.07.2023 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Durga Ram (supra) with further directions that in case the petitioner was found to be similarly situated, the benefit extended to the petitioners in Durga Ram (supra) would also be extended to him. During pendency of Execution Petition No.603 of 2024 instituted by the petitioner seeking enforcement of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), the respondent-University came up with office order dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P-6), revising retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. In the said office order, Secretariat Pay though was factored while computing the pension of the petitioner, but the arrears on that count were restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra). In the said office order, Secretariat Pay though was factored while computing the pension of the petitioner, but the arrears on that count were restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra). The petitioner has been paid pension by including Secretariat Pay as part of his basic pay w.e.f. July, 2020. Petitioner’s present grievance concerns restriction of his payable arrears to three years prior to filing of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), by the respondent-University. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the arrears for the left out period from 31.08.2018 till July, 2020 as well. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case 3(i). Following admitted & settled factual position is being noticed from the decision rendered in Durga Ram (supra):- (a). Respondent-University follows the Rules of the State Government for the purpose of grant of pay, allowances and other benefits including pension for its employees. (b). The Finance Committee of the respondent- University in its meeting convened on 08.10.1971, allowed grant of pay scales and allowances to its non-teaching staff on the pattern of H.P. Secretariat. The Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meetings held on 08.11.1971 and 23.04.1977, approved the recommendations of the Finance Committee. (c). The decision taken by the Executive Council of the University was conveyed by the Registrar of the University to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 19.07.2012. (d). Government of Himachal Pradesh on 23.04.2012 allowed Secretariat Pay to its employees working in the Secretariat and equivalent offices. It was also notified that Secretariat Pay would be treated as part of basic pay not only for calculating different allowances, but also the pensionary benefits. Relevant extract of the notification dated 23.04.2012 reads as under:- “The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, after careful consideration is pleased to order that the certain categories of employees working in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat and its above stated equivalent offices will be given Secretariat Pay at the rates mentioned in Annexure “A” enclosed to this letter with effect from 01.12.2011. The Secretariat Pay admissible under these orders will be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of various types of allowances and pensionary benefits. The Secretariat Pay admissible under these orders will be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of various types of allowances and pensionary benefits. This Secretariat Pay shall substitute the Secretariat Allowance admissible to all such categories/posts as per letter No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-4/98, dated 14th January 1999 and subsequent letters issued on the subject from time to time and this allowance shall stand abolished as on 30.11.2011.” (e). The aforesaid notification dated 23.04.2012 was adopted by respondent No.1-University vide its notification issued on 08.06.2012 in respect of grant of Secretariat Pay. The Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting convened on 08.04.2013, further decided to apply the notification dated 08.06.2012 concerning Secretariat Pay to several categories of employees/officers of the University and also to the retirees for releasing the retiral benefits. In this regard, a separate notification was issued by the respondent-University on 20.04.2013. 3(ii). Despite the above factual position, the Secretariat Pay was not being factored in the pension of the retired employees of respondent No.1-University. Feeling aggrieved, some of the retired employees took recourse to legal remedies, the lead case being Durga Ram (supra). The bunch of writ petitions was allowed on 18.10.2022. While allowing the writ petitions, the Court took cognizance of the stand of the respondent-University, wherein it had admitted the factual position, but defended its action for not factoring Secretariat Pay in computation of pension on the ground that Local Audit Department had objected to it. The State had taken the stand that the matter pertains to the University, an autonomous body, which is required to take its own decisions. The Court held that the Executive Council-the highest decision making body of the respondent-University, had already taken a conscious decision to adopt the notification of the State Government dated 23.04.2012 without any reservation; That being the position, Secretariat Pay was to be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of not only the allowances, but also the pensionary benefits; Once the decision making body of the respondent-University in exercise of the powers vested in it, had decided to grant specific service benefits to its employees, viz. factoring Secretariat Pay in computation of pension, the Local Audit Department cannot sit over the decision of the Executive Council. factoring Secretariat Pay in computation of pension, the Local Audit Department cannot sit over the decision of the Executive Council. That respondent No.1 ought to have ignored such objection of the Local Audit Department; The inaction of the respondent-University needed to be remedied by the Court as legal vested rights of the petitioners (employees of the respondent-University) had been adversely affected. With these observations, the petitions were allowed as under:- “9. Thus, undisputedly, the highest decision-making body of respondent No. 1 had taken a conscious decision to adopt the decision of State Government communicated vide communication dated 23.04.2012, as noticed above. No reservation was kept in implementation of such decision in respect of employees of respondent No.1. That being so, the Secretariat Pay was to be treated as part of basic pay for calculation of various types of allowances and pensionary benefits. 10. Once, the decision making body of respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers vested in it, had decided to grant particular service benefit to its employees, the Local Audit Department could not sit over the decision of the Executive Council that too by withholding only a part of benefit flowing from said decision. The objection of Local Audit Department could have been ignored or superseded by respondent No .1 and inaction of said respondent in this behalf needs to be remedied by intervention of this Court as the legal vested rights of the petitioners have been adversely affected thereby. 11. Resultantly, all these petitions are allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to include the Secretariat Pay as part of basic pay of petitioners for calculation of all types of permissible allowances and pensionary benefit and thereafter to re-fix the pension of the petitioners, accordingly. The entire exercise including payment of arrears, if any, to the petitioners shall be done by respondent No.1-University, within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.” 3(iii). Respondent-University implemented the above decision in Durga Ram (supra), but only qua the petitioners therein. All arrears on account of factoring Secretariat Pay in the pension of the petitioners were released in their favour. 3(iv). Respondent-University did not implement Durga Ram (supra) qua the petitioner. He was compelled to institute Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra) seeking applicability of Durga Ram (supra). Pursuant to the decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), respondents issued revised pension fixation order of the petitioner on 03.01.2024. 3(iv). Respondent-University did not implement Durga Ram (supra) qua the petitioner. He was compelled to institute Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra) seeking applicability of Durga Ram (supra). Pursuant to the decision in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), respondents issued revised pension fixation order of the petitioner on 03.01.2024. Secretariat Pay was now factored in petitioner’s Basic Pay for computing payable pension, but arrears thereof were restricted to three years from the date of filing Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), i.e. July, 2020. Petitioner seeks arrears right from the date of his superannuation, i.e. 31.08.2018. 4. Consideration:- According to the respondents, petitioner was a fence-sitter. He filed Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra) four years after his retirement, therefore, was not entitled to release of complete pension arrears; Arrears had been justly restricted in his case from three years prior to filing of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra). 4(i). Petitioner was in receipt of Secretariat Pay during his employment with the respondent-University. He retired as Deputy Registrar on 31.08.2018. Component of Secretariat Pay of Rs.2500/- was though shown in petitioner’s pension calculation sheet by the respondents, but presumably on account of objection of the Audit Department, the same was not factored in computation of his pension while issuing office order on 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-3). The said office order, however, contained a clause, making fixation of his retiral benefits including pension subject to change/correction on account of Secretariat Pay, subject to the decision of the Court. The said clause reads as under:- “7. The above pension case has been settled with the prior concurrence of the Finance Wing vide its dispatch No.1544 (Budget) dated 30.07.19 and also vetted & admitted provisionally by the Local Audit Department, H.P. University, Shimla-5 vide its dispatch No.512 (LAD) dated 28.08.19 (Subject to Audit Requisition No.41 dated 29.11.2018). The above payment(s) are subject to change/correction of factual error(s)/discrepancies and recoveries, if any on account of payment of Secretariat Pay and also subject to the decision/directions of the Hon’ble High Court/Administrative Tribunal in the matter.” The above condition found its way in the office order dated 06.09.2019 as Durga Ram (supra) was pending consideration at the time of petitioner’s retirement. In view of pendency of Durga Ram (supra) and insertion of Clause 7 in office order dated 06.09.2019, fixation of petitioner’s pension was to be governed by the decision in Durga Ram (supra). In view of pendency of Durga Ram (supra) and insertion of Clause 7 in office order dated 06.09.2019, fixation of petitioner’s pension was to be governed by the decision in Durga Ram (supra). Stricto sensu, petitioner was not required to take any separate legal recourse for computing pension by including component of Secretariat Pay. This aspect had to abide by the decision in Durga Ram (supra). 4(ii). Despite the decision in Durga Ram (supra) on 18.10.2022, the respondent-University did not implement it qua the petitioner. The decision in Durga Ram (supra) is a judgment in rem. It is not that some legal proposition was declared in Durga Ram (supra). The factual matrix was culled out in the said decision with direction to the respondent- University to abide by its own decisions in terms of decisions of the State Government. 4(iii)(a). For restricting petitioner’s pension arrears to three years, learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed reliance upon Union of India and others Versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 , more particularly upon following para 7 thereof:- “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” The above governs a situation where a service related claim is preferred belatedly and holds that in case such service related claim is based upon a continuing wrong, creating continuing source of injury and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained; If the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/ limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply; Consequently, the Court shall restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be belated in view of the facts discussed above. 4(iii)(b). Reliance has also been placed by the respondents upon the following principles summed up in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 :- “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 721 ). With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 721 ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” The above decision holds that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the same benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle needs to be applied empathically in service matters. Hon’ble Apex Court culled down legal principle that normal rule would be that merely because similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Durga Ram (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the above principle is subject to exceptions in form of laches, delay and acquiescence, but in the instant case, in the given facts, the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of laches, delay or acquiescence. Petitioner was not a fence-sitter. The office order issued by the respondent-University on 06.09.2019 fixed petitioner’s retiral benefits by computing his pension with specific reference concerning inclusion of Secretariat Pay in the basic pay to be governed by the decision of pending litigation. Petitioner’s was a case of retirement during the pendency of said litigation, but naturally, the petitioner waited for the decision of the litigation in view of specific clause in his pension fixation order. The decision came in favour of the petitioners in Durga Ram (supra). Petitioner would have benefited from the said decision. Petitioner’s was a case of retirement during the pendency of said litigation, but naturally, the petitioner waited for the decision of the litigation in view of specific clause in his pension fixation order. The decision came in favour of the petitioners in Durga Ram (supra). Petitioner would have benefited from the said decision. The said decision was in rem. It was required to be implemented by the respondent-University qua all the similarly situated retirees. Instead of acting as a welfare employer, the respondent-University did not implement Durga Ram (supra) qua the petitioner. He was made to institute a separate writ petition in the year 2023. Having compelled the petitioner to institute his individual writ petition in the year 2023, the respondent-University cannot be permitted now to drive advantage out of this fact by claiming that arrears due to the petitioner consequent upon implementation of the decision in Durga Ram (supra) would be restricted to three years prior to the institution of the writ petition (Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra)). The exceptions of delay, laches and acquiescence are not applicable where the decision rendered is a judgment in rem, as is laid down in afore-extracted para 22.3 of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra). Decisions rendered in Ashok Kumar Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No.6425 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matters on 11.03.2022, State of HP & another Versus Tulpi Devi and others, CWP No.786 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matters on 10.01.2023 and Chatro Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWPOA No.6143 of 2020, decided on 23.05.2024, relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1- University, are also on the same principle and are not attracted to the given facts of the case. 4(iv). In Lt. Col Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that where a citizen aggrieved by the action of the Government Department has approached the Court and obtained the declaration of law in his favour, the other similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to approach the Court. There is no justification to penalize the employees, who have not come to Court/for not having litigated, they too shall be entitled to the same benefit as the petitioner. There is no justification to penalize the employees, who have not come to Court/for not having litigated, they too shall be entitled to the same benefit as the petitioner. In exceptional cases, where the Court has expressly prohibited the extension of benefit to those who have not approached the Court till then or in cases where grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire different dimension and the Department would be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims extension of the benefit of the said judgment. In cases where employer is not able to point out any valid justification as to how the petitioner is not identically situated with incumbents who had succeeded before the Court, the respondents are liable to grant same benefits to that petitioner as well. Petitioner’s case, in such situation, is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: - “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714 ] 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431 , this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- “19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ….” (Emphasis Supplied) 16 ……………………… 17. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench in OA No. 111 of 2013 and batch are not identically situated with the appellant. Like the applicants who succeeded, the appellant was also ripe for the third chance before the amended para 4(a) of AI No. 37 of 1978 was introduced on 20.03.2013. The Principal Bench of the AFT in OA No. 111 of 2013 after clearly holding that the applicants therein were denied the third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy. 18. ……………………….. 19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to us. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If the applicants in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI No. 37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike. 20 to 22……………………………… 23. We hold that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were considered and granted permanent commission. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant.” In Union of India and others Vs. Today, eleven years have elapsed. It will not be fair to subject her to the rigors of the 2013 parameters as she is now nearly 45 years of age. There has been no fault on the part of the appellant.” In Union of India and others Vs. Munshi Ram, Civil Appeal No.2811 of 2022, decided on 31.10.2022, it was held that there cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees working under the same employer. All such employees are required to be treated similar & equally and are entitled to the similar benefits & same treatment. There cannot be any discrimination between the same set of employees. 4(v). Since the respondent-University did not implement Durga Ram (supra) qua the petitioner, he was compelled to institute Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra). The said petition was decided on 25.07.2023 as under:- “Prayer in these petitions is to include Secretariat pay as part of the Basic Pay for computing pension and other retiral benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.208/2020 (Durga Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh University & Anr. alongwith connected matters) decided on 18.10.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners would be content, in case, respondents/ competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners, in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case, the petitioners are found to be similarly situated then the benefit extended to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, shall also be extended to the petitioners in the instant cases also. The entire exercise be completed within six weeks from today. The entire exercise be completed within six weeks from today. These petitions are disposed of, in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.” The above decision not only directed the respondent to implement Durga Ram (supra) in case of petitioner, but also directed that in case the petitioner was found to be similarly situated, then the benefit extended to Durga Ram would also be extended to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the case of present petitioner is not similar to that of Durga Ram (supra). Having applied Durga Ram (supra) to the case of the petitioner under office order dated 03.01.2024 and factored Secretariat Pay while computing his pension, in the given facts, the respondents could not have restricted the arrears payable to him to three years prior to the filing of Dr. Hem Raj Sharma (supra), i.e. July, 2020. The arrears of Secretariat Pay are required to be paid to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation, i.e. 31.08.2018. 5. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1-University is directed to pay arrears of Secretariat Pay to the petitioner for the remaining period, i.e. from the date of petitioner’s superannuation on 31.08.2018 till the date from which the arrears have actually been released in his favour. This exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.