(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2720 OF 1999 Balwant Gopalrao Kulkarni, Age : 78 years, Occupation : Retired, From Army, R/o. Wadi-Bhokar Road, House No. 4032, Deopur, Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The State of Maharashtra. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Central Government (Complaint and Pension), Mantralaya, New Delhi. 4. Office Incharge of E.M.E. record, Secunderabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. (2) Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents, to grant pension to the petitioner, from the date of his discharge from service i.e. from 27th February 1956. The petitioner has also prayed that he should be treated at par with the freedom fighters and the provisions of the freedom fighters' scheme should be made applicable to him with all other benefits. 2. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Central Government has made pension scheme applicable to such of the soldiers who have participated in the second world war, who are either dead, or, injured, or, who are members of Azad Hind Sena. It is submitted that when the soldiers who have participated in the second world war, of the aforesaid three categories, have been given benefit of (3) pension scheme, there is no justification on the part of the respondents, in denying the same benefit to the petitioner. He further submits that the soldiers like the petitioner are entitled to be treated as freedom fighters and given benefit of freedom fighters' pension scheme. He further submits that the discharge of the petitioner, from service, is neither stigmatic nor punitive and, therefore, the petitioner should not be considered to be disentitle for pension. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4, on instructions, makes a categorical statement, that the petitioner's case is governed by the Army Regulation, 1940, in which minimum qualifying service has been prescribed as 15 years. It is submitted that since the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service of 15 years, he is not entitled to pension, as prayed for. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 15 years of qualifying service. When a minimum period is prescribed under the relevant rules of service conditions, and if a person does not complete the qualifying service period, he would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. In that view of the matter, the relief, in that respect, cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5. In so far as the second prayer, that the petitioner (4) should be treated at par with the freedom fighters, is concerned, the same would be a policy matter to be decided by the executive. Such a writ, in our considered view, would be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the relief, in that respect, cannot be granted. 6. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2720