HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30549 OF 2010 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner was employed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’). He suffered serious illness in the form of Post Psychotic Depression. Though he was subjected to prolonged treatment, the ailment continued. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Group Center, Ranga Reddy, the 4th respondent herein, passed an order, dated 21-05-2010, invalidating the petitioner from service, as per Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (for short ‘the Rules). However, no invalid pension has been sanctioned to him. Petitioner submitted a representation, dated 11-11-2010, to the 4th respondent. Through reply dated 16-11-2010, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that no pension is payable to her husband, since he did not put in 10 years of service as required under Rule 49 (2) of the Rules. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. There is no denial of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was retired from service on being invalidated. The relevant paragraphs of the order, dated 25-05-2010, passed by the 4th respondent read as under: “No.020830034 Cook K. Ramakrishna Reddy was communicated in writing about the findings of the MIB dated 31/03/2010 vide this office letter No.M.III-1/2010-EC-1 dated 19/04/2010 in accordance with Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and under the provision of GOI decision No.5(2) below Rule-4 of CCS (Medical Examination) Rule, 1957 with the direction to prefer appeal, if any, against the finding of the MIB dated 31/03/2010, supported by prima-facie evidence within one month from the date of receipt of the said letter. Though he received said letter on 21/04/2010, he has not submitted any appeal till completion of one month period i.e. upto 20-05-2010. Accordingly, No.020830034 Cook K. Ramakrishna Reddy of this GC is hereby invalidated out from service wef 21/5/2010 as per provision contained in Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Standing order No.7/99 and is hereby struck off strength of this GC from the same date i.e. 21/5/2010 (AN).” 4. From this, it is evident that the invalidation was referable to Rule 38 of the Rules. The only object or purpose in referring Rule 38 was to enable him to the sanction of the invalid pension. A perusal of Rule 38 makes it clear that it does not insist on any minimum service to be rendered by a member of the Force or employee to make him eligible to be sanctioned the pension. 5. In reply to the representation made by the petitioner, the 4th respondent referred to Rule 49(2) of the Rules and rejected the claim. Rule 49, in a way stipulates the minimum service to be rendered by an employee, to be paid the ordinary pension. The invalid pension stands on a different footing. It does not refer to any minimum service. Hence, there was no justification for the 4th respondent in not sanctioning the invalid pension to the husband of the petitioner, by placing reliance upon Rule 49 of the Rules, when it is squarely covered by Rule 38 of the Rules. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to pass fresh orders by treating the case of the husband of the petitioner under Rule 38 of the Rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 07, 2010 KTL