1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 11 of 2003 Date of decision: 25.06.2008 _________________________________________________ Shakuntla Devi. Appellant -vs- Union of India and others. Respondents _________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.Sandip Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General. __________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. The present appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, passed in Civil writ petition No. 1802 of 2006 whereby the appellant’s writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him pension, on account of his military service, by treating the entire service rendered by him, as qualifying service, without making any cut on account of forfeiture of service pursuant to the order of penalty or even if some cut in the qualifying service was to be made on account of forfeiture of service, the same should be from the total length of service which is around thirty-eight years. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the maximum qualifying service is thirty-three years and, therefore, the cut on account of forfeiture of qualifying service, for the purpose of pension, is to be made not from the total length of service, rendered but thirty-three years, the maximum of qualifying service. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 Appellant served in the army for 37 years and 307 days, before he retired on 30-11-1990. At the time of his retirement, his provisional pension was fixed at rupees 2245/- per month, taking his qualifying service to be thirty-three years, which is the maximum limit of qualifying service for working out the amount of pension. This was provisional pension, because at the time of his retirement, the appellant was facing court- martial on the allegations that he had allowed some prisoners to escape. After retirement, he was found guilty and order of forfeiture of three years qualifying service was passed. On the passing of the aforesaid order, his pension was reduced to rupees 1905/- by treating his qualifying service as thirty years instead of thirty-three years. It appears that the higher authorities revised the order of forfeiture of service and ordered forfeiture of ten years qualifying service instead of three years, passed initially. After that vide Annexure-P8, the pension was again revised and the amount was reduced to rupees 1565/- per month, brining down the qualifying service from thirty-three years to twenty-three years. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant having rendered around thirty-eight years of service cut on account of forfeiture of ten years service is required to be made from thirty-eight years and not the upper limit of qualifying service of thirty-three years, prescribed under the rules. We find no merit in the submission for the simple reason that if the submission is accepted, then the order of forfeiture 3 of service by way of penalty would be rendered futile. Otherwise also, since the qualifying service cannot exceed thirty-three years, forfeiture of a part of qualifying service has to be enforced by reducing the upper limit of qualifying service, i.e, thirty three years and not the total length in service rendered by a servant by the number of years of forfeited service. Needless to say that the order of forfeiture of ten years qualifying service had not been assailed by the appellant at any stage, not even in the application before the Administrative Tribunal. In view of the above said position, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. June 25, 2008. (bm)