1 S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 813/06 Ex. NC(E) Jagdish Adiwal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. Date of order : 21.2.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. P.S. Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur for the respondents. The petitioner by this writ petition challenged the annexures/ 1,2 and 3 on various ground. However, while arguing the matter learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to pursue only on the issue of quantum of punishment and alternative for grant of benefit of pension even if the order of dismissal is maintained. It is urged that the petitioner having worked for merely 24 years and in that regard, last extension in service was granted in the year 1998 for the period of five years. In the last year due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner remained absence and on that count impugned orders have been passed. Looking to the above fact, it is submitted that the respondents should have taken a lenient view in passing the order of punishment, therefore, it is prayed that this court should interfere in the quantum of punishment. 2 Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 (5) SCC 11 (Union of India Vs. Narayan Singh) this court cannot make interfere in the quantum of punishment rather it is a discretion of the administration to pass the appropriate order taking into consideration the delinquency of the official. Even for grant of benefit of pension as per Rule 16 of the Pension Regulaion for Air Force 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation of 1961) the petitioners case cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if this court cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment but appropriate direction can be given to the administration for reconsideration of the case at least for grant of pensionary benefit as an exceptional case falling under Rule 16 of the Regulation of 1961. Thus, the present writ petition is pursued limitedly to the grant of pensionary benefit as per regulation. Of 1961 as applicable to the cases of dismissal or removal and for that purpose the petitioner will make a representation. I have considered the rival submission of the parties since the only issue remains in regard to grant of benefit under Rule 16 of the 3 regulation of 1961 thus, without interfering in the quantum of punishment, the petitioner is directed to submit representation to the respondents for re consideration of his case for grant of pensionary benefit in view of the regulation of 1961. It is expected from the respondent that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case a sympathetic consideration would be kept in mind and if the benefit of pension can be made admissible to the petitioner under rule 16 of the regulation of 1961, necessary order may be passed. Without interfering in the quantum of punishment respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of benefit of pension as per regulation of 1961 and in that regard the petitioner may make a representation to the petitioner within the period of 15 days from today and thereupon the respondent are directed to pass necessary order within the period of four months. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. ns.