IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5163 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PARMALSINGH D RAJPUT Versus OFFICER IN CHARGE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR IM PANDYA for Petitioner MR BB NAIK for Respondent No. 1 MS PROMILA SAFAYA for Respondent No. 2 MR BIPIN I MEHTA for Respondent No. 3, 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT Date of decision: 12/01/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner and pay him arrears upto the date of the order and return the military discharge certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner was a sepoy in Indian Army. He served at various places and he was compulsorily retired. His grievance was that the pension should have been fixed and given by the respondent authority. A copy of the affidavit in reply is tendered today contending that the original affidavit in reply was filed and the same is not traceable. It is not disputed that the petitioner was granted compulsory retirement, but he had not put in requisite number of years of service so as to become eligible for pensionary benefits. The period of service with the respondent was less than ten years and therefore there is consensus that the petitioner would not be competent and eligible for pensionary benefits. In this view of the matter, the petition is required to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (J.N.Bhatt, J.) (vjn)