1 S/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2394/2003 [SURYA VEER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] Dated : 26.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.Harish Purohit for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Tiwari Dy.G.A. for the respondent. ***** By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged Annexurs 3 to 5 and prayed that he should be awarded benefit of pension. The facts relevant to the present matter are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of constable vide the order dated 26.07.1983. After confirmation of service in the Year 1986 petitioner was punished with the punishment of proportionate reduction of pension on compulsory retirement pursuant to the order dated 31.12.1992 (Annex.3). It is submitted that the corrigendum was issued making it to be order of compulsory retirement with reduction of pension by Rs.50/- per month. According to the petitioner if those orders are even allowed to stand, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension but despite of it, the benefit of pension has not been allowed in his favour. Though challenge has been made to Annexures 3 to 5 but I do not find any ground which can be taken up for quashing of the 2 aforesaid orders more so when looking to the delinquency and proof thereof impugned orders were passed. Now the only question remains as to whether petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefit or not and in that regard petitioner has made much emphasis on the orders otherwise passed from Annexs. 3 to 5 showing that though as a measure of punishment order of compulsory retirement was passed but then order for reduction of pension by Rs.50/- was also issued but those orders have not been complied with by granting pension with deduction of Rs.50/- per month. For the purpose of grant of pensionary benefit one is required to possess the qualifying service as is provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, as was then applicable to the petitioner, being an action of compulsory retirement in the Year 1993. As per the provisions of RSR, required minimum qualifying service to get the benefit of pension is of 10 years which admittedly petitioner had not completed as his order of appointment is dated 26.07.1983 and petitioner was then discontinued from served in the Year 1992 itself and thereby the petitioner has not completed required 10 years qualifying service. In absence of completion of required qualifying service in accordance to the rules no benefit can be given to the petitioner dehors the statutory provisions even if punishment order makes a mention regarding reduction of pension but said order can be made effective in case petitioner is entitled for pension. The fact 3 thus remains that even if the said order is allowed to send then it can be given effect only when the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension or otherwise since it has already been held that petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefit for want of having qualifying service, the petitioner cannot claim benefit pursuant to the impugned order dehors the rules. During the course of dictation of judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compulsory retirement with reduction of pension amounts to two punishment but looking to the fact of this case in regards to the aforesaid argument it became clear that since the petitioner is not otherwise entitled for the pensionary benefit, infact the impugned order does not imposes two punishments on the petitioner. Hence even if the last argument made during the course of dictation of the judgment is taken into consideration then also the outcome of this case remains the same. In view of the above finding I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta