IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:36576 of 1998 Between: Smt.Laiq Kutubuddin Ahmed, W/o.Late Cap.Mohd.Kutubuddin Ahmed, R/o.H.No.16-10-28,Nuruka Manzil, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:Ms. R.SIVA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 13.06.1994 issued by the respondent and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive the full pension of her deceased husband Captain Mohd. Kutubuddin Ahmed in terms of Article 376 of the Hyderabad Military Financial Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.1951 till the date of his death i.e. 21.01.1981. Heard Ms. Siva Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent. The husband of the petitioner served erstwhile Hyderabad Army as Captain from 19.08.1940 to 31.01.1951. He died on 21.01.1981. The petitioner moved the respondent for payment of full pension to her husband and also sanction of family pension to her in terms of Article 376 of the Regulations. In response to the said representation, the respondent issued proceedings, dated 13.06.1994 addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff, which reads as under: “Sir, I am directed to say that president is pleased to grant Rs.150/- p.m. Ex-Gratia family pension to Smt. Laiq Kutubuddin Ahmed, W/o late H-133 Capt. Kutubuddin Ahmed of Hyderabad State Forces w.e.f. 1.1.92 as a special case. She will also be entitled to Dearness Relief as admissible from time to time on the analogy of the Ministry of Defence letter No.10(7)/92/D (Pens/Sers), dated 30.3.92. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of this Ministry vide their U.O.No.1106/Pen-94, dated 10.6.94.” The action of the respondent in not acceding to the petitioner’s request referred to above in the matter of payment of pension is assailed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Article 376 of the Regulations, which reads as under: “Army employees drawing Rs.30/- and over per month and whose rank is superior to the non-commissioned would be entitled to pension after a qualifying service of 10 years.” According to the learned counsel, the husband of the petitioner completed more than 10 years of service, which qualifies for payment of pension. She also relied on Article 249 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations to drive home the plea that even the persons who rendered temporary service are entitled to pension. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on Article 373 of the Regulations. A copy of the extract of the said Regulations is filed along with the counter-affidavit. Under Regulation 373(3), it is provided that except where it has been emphasized under the terms of service, no one may retire on his own discretion before completing qualifying service of 25 years. An exception is, however, made in favour of individuals, who retire on medical grounds irrespective of period of service. It is not the case of the petitioner that either the terms of service of her husband permitted him to retire voluntarily before completing qualifying service of 25 years or that he was allowed to retire on medical ground. On a conjoint reading of Articles 376 and 373 of the Regulations, the inevitable conclusion that would emerge is that if an army employee retires in ordinary course after completing the qualifying service of 10 years, he is entitled to pension. But, however, in the case of a person, who voluntarily retires, the qualifying service in such case shall be 25 years and not 10 years. As admittedly, the husband of the petitioner did not serve for 25 years before taking voluntary retirement, denial of pensionary benefits to him cannot be said to be contrary to the Regulations. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni