R.S.A.No.244 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.244 of 2008 Date of Decision : 14.07.2009 Satpal Singh ...Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to pensionary benefits, was dismissed. An order of dismissal of service of the plaintiff was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.8.2001. However, in appeal, the order was modified and the plaintiff was ordered to be compulsory retired. It is thereafter, the plaintiff raised a demand of payment of pensionary benefits, which has been declined, which lead to filing of the present suit. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit as well. It has been found that though the plaintiff has been paid gratuity, but the plaintiff is not entitled to pension as his qualifying service is 9 years, 3 months and 14 days, whereas before plaintiff is found entitle to pension, he must have a qualifying service of 10 years. It has been found that out of total service of 10 years, 8 months and 27 days, the non-qualifying service is 1 year, 5 R.S.A.No.244 of 2008 2 months and 4 days. Both the Courts have considered the respective contentions of the parties and returned a finding of fact that the plaintiff has not completed 10 years of qualifying service, which alone will make the plaintiff eligible for pension. Such finding cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted in view of the facts on record. In view of the evidence recorded, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 14.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE