1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 783/2006 (Pema Ram Vs. Union of India &ors.) Date : 01.05.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA, J. Mr. Ranjeet Joshi for the appellant. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for respondent UOI = = = = = At the request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was initially appointed in the service of Armed Service Corps (Animal transportation) from 12.03.62 and according to appellant himself, as pleaded in para 1 of the appeal, he was transferred to Pioneer Corps w.e.f 15.11.64. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from the said new employment w.e.f 01.04.77. Admittedly, the appellant is getting pensionary benefits from the Union of India through his employer Armed Service Corps where he served and from where, his services have been transferred to Pioneer Corps. The grievance of the appellant is that he served for 14 years and 254 days in the cadre of new employment and is entitled to pensionary benefit. In a case where there is some period short than the eligibility period of service entitling pernsionable benefits, then that deficiency in period can be condoned under Rule 134 of Pension Regulations of respondent, applicable to the appellant. In the appellant's case, that discretion has not been exercised arbitrarily and his 2 prayer for grant of pension has been denied. The appellant petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that Rule 125 has no application to the facts of present case and therefore, the deficiency in the qualifying service cannot be condoned. It is also the view taken by learned Single Judge that deficiency is far beyond three months and as such, there is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction. However, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the appellant was getting the pensionary benefits from Union of India as he was in defence service, as admitted by him and person who is getting pensionary benefit, because of his earlier appointment in defence service, and his services having been transferred to other wing of defence, then as per Rule 125 and as per Government's decision dated 07.12.62 (Annex.R/3 in writ petition), such person is not entitled to second pensionary benefit in present case other benefit has been paid to the petitioner. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and found that the appellant is not entitled to any relief because of the reason that he was in employment of Armed service and his services have been transferred to other wing of Armed force and the appellant cannot claim two pensions from one employment. There is a decision of Government interpreting Rule 125, which is in force since 1962. Therefore, that settled position cannot be altered so as to give benefit to the appellant. Further 3 more, the Government order of 1962 (Annex.4) is not under challenge. Rule 125 clearly provides that the person covered under Rule 164 will not be entitled to pensionary benefit. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (CHAND MAL TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.