(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2276 OF 1994 Babu s/o. Tulshiram Kumathekar, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Pensioner, formerly 7106867K, Naik (P/A/HAV), 512, Army Base Workshop, Khadki, Pune, Dist. Pune, now r/o. Hali, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Union of India. 2. Chief of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New Delhi - 110 011. 3. Senior Record Officer, E.M.E., Secunderabad, State : Andhra Pradesh. 4. Treasury Officer, Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.R. Bharad, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. (2) Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner claims that he has retired in October 1990. It is an admitted fact, that the petitioner was subjected to General Court Martial, in which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years, and was dismissed from service. 2. The petitioner preferred pre-confirmation petition against the order rendered in the Court Martial Case and he was transferred to Central Jail, Aurangabad, for undergoing the sentence. The pre-confirmation petition was also dismissed. As such, the petitioner preferred post-confirmation petition before Chief of the Army Staff. It is the case of the petitioner, that prior to completion of the sentence of two years, he was released from prison and, as such, according to him, probably his appeal has been allowed and on that count, claims pensionary benefits. (3) 3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, contending that in the post-confirmation petition, his sentence has been reduced, whereas his conviction has been maintained and as he has been dismissed from service, as per Rule 113 of Pension Regulation for Army Part I, 1961, the petitioner is not entitled for pension. 4. The petitioner has not controverted the contentions of the respondents in the affidavit in reply, that in the post- confirmation petition, the dismissal was confirmed and only remaining sentence was remitted. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service, Rule 113 of Pension Regulation for Army Part-I, 1961, does not admit the petitioner of any pensionary benefits. 6. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2276