IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2761 of 2007 EX.-SEP.SUNIL KUMAR,ARMY NO.4271510.A., son of Sri Baleshwar Tanti, resident of village- Krishna Nagar Koolipara, P.O.- Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Defence Secretary, Army H.Q. Defence H.Q. New Delhi. 2.The Chief of the Army Staff, Army H.Q., Defence H.Q., New Delhi 3.The Senior Record Officer, Bihar Regiment Abhilekh Karyalaya, Record, the Bihar Regiment, PIN- 900441 C/O 56 APO 4.The Officer Incharge, P.C.D.A. (Pension), Allahabad (U.P.) ----------- 2 18.04.2009 Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the retiral dues with regard to disability pension as well as other dues on account of gratuity and other claims, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the writ application, have not been paid. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on mere perusal of the letter dated 26th June, 2006 (Annexure-3), it would appear that the petitioner was not qualified for receiving the service pension as well as the disability pension as he did not complete the minimum qualifying service of fifteen years in terms of Rules 132 and 178 of the Pension Regulation Part 1, Army, 1961. The said decision has not been assailed by the petitioner, and as such, no pension can be paid to the petitioner contrary to the above rules, and accordingly, it was not paid. As regards other dues, details have been given in - 2 - the counter affidavit and reasons have been assigned for denial of other claims of the petitioner with regard to leave encashment, A.G.I. disability benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the rejoinder affidavit, in paragraph 4 it is explained that he did not complete the required service on account of his ill health and the authority did not give him suitably posting, and as such, the petitioner had made request for his discharge on his own. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, disputes the same by placing the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-R/9 in order to show that the petitioner had requested for his discharge on his own on account of his family problems. Considering the submissions of the parties, as noticed above, and on perusal of their respective pleadings, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)