CWP No. 16792 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16792 of 2009 Date of decision 4.11.2009 Ex. Naik Chander Singh ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S.Rathee ,Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner who is an ex-serviceman has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 12.9.2008 (P.4) refusing to release pro-rata pension to him. A further prayer has been made for declaring Regulation 132 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961 (P.7) as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner has rendered service in the Indian Army from 24.1.1963 to 30.3.1973 when he was discharged on his own request. The total service rendered by him is 10 years 2 months and 7 days. His particulars of discharge w.e.f. 30.3.1973 in statement dated 18.3.2008 (P.1) does not indicate whether he was discharged at his own request or for any other reason, although he has claimed that he was compelled to seek discharge on account of unavoidable and compelling family circumstances. He requested for release of proportionate pension and other retiral benefits for the aforesaid service on 11.6.2008 (P.2) and 6.8.2008 (P.3). However, his claim was rejected vide letter dated 12.9.2008 (P.4) which is in reply to CWP No. 16792 of 2009 2 the legal notice dated 6.8.2008 (P.3). The principal reason for rejection revealed from the intimation dated 12.9.2008 is that service record of the petitioner has been destroyed by burning as the retention period of 25 years from the date of discharge being non pensioner case, had expired. The aforesaid action is stated to have been taken in terms of para 598 of Defense Service Regulations 1987 (Revised) (for brevity 'the 1987 Regulations'). The other reason revealed in para 3 of the communication is that in terms of para 132 of Pension Regulation Part 1, 1996 it was mandatory to serve atleast for 15 years to become eligible to earn pension. We have heard the learned counsel at length and find that the instant petition does not merit acceptance. Regulation 132 of Pension Regulation Part I, 1966 which is relevant to the controversy raised herein reads as under: “ The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.” A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation shows that for earning service pension minimum period of qualifying service is 15 years. There is nothing in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution which could result in a declaration that qualifying service could not be stipulated as a pre-condition for grant of pension. There is no ambiguity in the language of the Regulation which may warrant an interpretation that actual 15 years be read as 10 years. There is no uniform formula which may constitute a basis for recording the conclusion that particular number of years of qualifying service would alone be just and fair. To our mind, there is no violation of the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16(1) of CWP No. 16792 of 2009 3 the Constitution. Accordingly, we uphold the validity of Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulation, 1961. The communication dated 12.9.2008 (P.4) is a reasoned and well speaking order. The petitioner was discharged on 30.3.1973 and according to para 598 of the 1987 Regulations, the record of non pensioner is required to be retained for a period of 25 years. The aforesaid period came to an end in the year 1998. Therefore, the papers concerning the petitioner has been destroyed by burning as per Regulation 598 of the 1987 Regulations. Ordinarily, the delay in filing of writ petition claiming pension is not considered as fatal but in the present case the delay has non suited the petitioner on account of the fact that the office record concerning the petitioner has been destroyed by burning in view of the Regulation 598 of the 1987 Regulations. The impugned letter dated 12.9.2008 (P.4) does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition does not warrant admission and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 4.11.2009 Judge okg