1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.429 OF 2005 PETITION NO.429 OF 2005 PETITION NO.429 OF 2005 K.Venugopalan Petitioner vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta with Mr.Satendra Kumar for the petitioner. Mrs.S.V.Bharucha with Ms.A.S.Kaushik for the respondents. ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.445 OF 2005 PETITION NO.445 OF 2005 PETITION NO.445 OF 2005 N.S.Yadav & ors. Petitioners vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta with Mr.Satendra Kumar for the petitioners. Mrs.S.V.Bharucha with Ms.A.S.Kaushik for the respondents. ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2005 PETITION NO.1587 OF 2005 PETITION NO.1587 OF 2005 S.S.Dhanwa & ors. Petitioners vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta with Mr.Satendra Kumar for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Pakale with Ms.A.S.Kaushik for the respondents. ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1938 OF 2005 PETITION NO.1938 OF 2005 PETITION NO.1938 OF 2005 M.K.Gopalkrishnan Petitioner vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta with Mr.Satendra Kumar for the petitioner. 2 Mr.Rajiv Chavan withMr.Y.R.Mishra for the respondents. AND AND AND ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2950 OF 2005 PETITION NO.2950 OF 2005 PETITION NO.2950 OF 2005 Kaur Singh Petitioner vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Shyam Mehta with Mr.Satendra Kumar for the petitioner. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED : 22nd November, 2006 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The case of the petitioners herein is similar to what has been set out in Writ Petition No.430/2005. In addition in Writ Petition No.429/2005 an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner setting out that he had joined Mazgaon Dock Limited on his release from the Navy and he is not drawing any pension from Mazgaon Dock Limited. Similarly affidavit has been filed by M.K.Gopalkrishnan in Writ Petition No.1938/2005. 3. As we have held Regulation 82(a) to be null and void, the cases of these petitioners will have to be treated pari materia with those of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.430/2005. 3 4. The concerned respondents in these cases are directed to consider the case of each of the petitioners under Regulation 82 for condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility for service pension, according to law at any rate within sixteen weeks from today. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( F.I. REBELLO, J.) F.I. REBELLO, J.) F.I. REBELLO, J.) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. ) ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. ) ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. )