1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.856 OF 1993 ... Subhashchandra A. Rane ...Petitioner v/s. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.D.B.Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.R.Mishra for Respondent No. 1. Mr.P.M.Patel for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 16th July, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31-3-1993 by which the services of the Petitioner have been 2 terminated. He also seeks a direction to the Respondent to continue him in the service. During the pendency of the petition, the Petitioner reached the age of superannuation and therefore, he amended the petition and sought relief that the Respondent be directed to pay the Petitioner s retirement benefits including Provident Fund, gratuity, arrears of salary, encashment of leave, Group Insurance Scheme and pension. 2. So far as challenge to the order terminating the services of the Petitioner is concerned, perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Technical Assistant by order dated 17th March, 1978 in relation to the Rader Project Centre for a fixed period. The appointment orders that have been subsequently given to the Petitioner shows that in each case he was 3 appointed for a fixed period. It is the case of the Respondent that before giving appointment to the Petitioner on each occasion he was asked to give his option whether he wants to accept the appointment or not to accept the appointment and on his exercising the option he was appointed. Thus, really speaking the Respondent has not terminated the services of the Petitioner, his services has come to an end by efflux of time. The stand of the Respondent is that the Petitioner was always appointed with reference to some project which was going on for a fixed period of time. 3. Thus, we do not find any fault with the order terminating the services of the Petitioner, because the Petitioner was appointed always for a fixed duration after giving him an option on each occasion either 4 to accept the appointment or not to accept the appointment. 4. In this view of the matter, therefore, we can not interfere with the order by which the services of the Petitioner has come to an end. So far as the claim of the Petitioner for pension and gratuity is concerned, perusal of the rules which admittedly are in force shows that for being entitled to pension a person must have put in atleast 30 years of qualifying service. The Petitioner, admittedly, has not put in that period of service and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. Perusal of Rule 21 shows that a person who completed the qualifying years of service , on retirement from service is eligible for a gratuity or pension under paragraph 19. Thus, pension and gratuity go hand in hand. A person who retires after 5 completing qualifying years of service has an option to accept pension or gratuity. As the Petitioner is not entitled to pension, he is also not entitled to gratuity. So far as the directions sought to the Respondent for payment of provident fund is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent at the out set stated that within a period of two weeks from today the Respondent will pay to the Petitioner whatever amount of provident fund that is payable to him, after taking into consideration any withdrawals that have been made by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also stated before us that apart from P.F., the Respondent will also pay to the Petitioner any other amount that may be payable to him under the law, considering the services rendered by him to the Respondent. 6 5. In our opinion, in view of the statement made by the advocate appearing for the Respondent, no direction is necessary in relation to the payment of P.F. Also. 6. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) 7