CWP No.4153 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 4153 of 2007 Date of Decision: 1 - 11 - 2010 NCC-PC-12269 Major Harchand Ram (Retd.) ....Petitioner v. Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen Chopra, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.1.2006, Annexure P2, and directing the respondents to release full pension to him by taking into account 30 years service as qualifying service along with all consequential benefits. Petitioner was a permanent Commissioned NCC Officer. He retired from service under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India on 31.3.1991 in the rank of Major as a permanent Commissioned NCC Officer. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, the age of superannuation was 55 CWP No.4153 of 2007 [2] years. It is the case of the petitioner that retirement age for the Central Government employees is 58 years and the qualifying service for entitlement to full pension is 33 years under the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 and the petitioner is entitled to full pension on completion of 30 years qualifying service and, thus, on completion of 27 years, 1 month and 9 days service, the petitioner is entitled to 9/10th of the full pension, whereas he has been granted 9/11th of full pension on his retirement of 55 years on pro rata basis, applying the formula of 33 years qualifying service, which is applicable to Central Government employees, who retire at the age of 58 years. In this petition, it has been prayed that petitioner should be released full pension by taking into account 30 years as full pension w.e.f. 1.4.1991, as the petitioner retired on 31.3.1991. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure P4, a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court viz. Civil Writ Petition No.6 of 2000, titled as, `Retd. Major A.S.Dahiya v. Union of India and others', decided on 17.12.2003. Further a similar view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Lt. (Mrs.) B. Mahajan (Retd.) v. Union of India and others, 2008(1) SCT 541. The Division Bench in Lt. (Mrs.) B. Mahajan (Retd.)'s case (supra) has held as under:- “8. The claim of the petitioner for enhancement of pension is on the basis that the total qualifying service is only 30 years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the age of superannuation is 55 years, then the qualifying service should be 30 years and not 33 years. For those employees who retire at the age of 58 years, the qualifying service for calculating pension is 33 years. But the services of the petitioner were terminated on her attaining the age of 55 CWP No.4153 of 2007 [3] years as provided in para 5 of the Army Instructions as amended in the year 1983. The learned counsel in support of this argument referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2125. It was contended that the ceiling on the qualifying service in the case of service record opters should be 30 years instead of 33 years, particularly in respect of person who retired at the age of 55 years. Dealing with this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “The only other question which requires determination is whether the appropriate period of service should be 30 years or 33 years. At the relevant time when each of the petitioner superannuated, the retiring age was 55 years. We are of the view that the period of qualifying service as indicated therein should, therefore, be 30 years.” Therefore, the pension of the petitioner is to be calculated by taking the qualifying service as 30 years and not 33 years. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay the remaining balance of gratuity amount as per the provisions of para 11 of Army Instructions 14/77 and calculate the pension on the basis of 30 years' qualifying service instead of 33 years.” Since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Lt. (Mrs.) B. Mahajan (Retd.)'s case (supra), consequently, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in the case of Lt. (Mrs.) B. Mahajan (Retd.)' case (supra). ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 1, 2010. JUDGE RC