CWP No.3329 of 1991 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No.3329 of 1991 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Ex.Rifleman Dhaninder Singh(No.192399), (Unsound Mind) through his natural Guardian ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 15.3.1990 (Annexure P-4) and 25.4.1990 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondents No.2 and 3, declaring the petitioner ineligible for “Invalid Pension” and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pensionary benefits to the petitioner with the consequential relief of arrears etc. with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of his discharge on “Invalid Pension”. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was enlisted as Rifleman on 11.9.1980 after having found medically fit in all respects and after his enlistment, he carried out his training successfully and was posted in 19th Battalion Assam Rifle. The petitioner carried out his duties on the Military pattern under the command and guidance of CWP No.3329 of 1991 2 Respondent No.3 to his utmost satisfaction. The petitioner was rendered unfit for Military Service and was discharged on 30.4.1989 from service on Invalid Pension. At that point of time, the petitioner had rendered 8 years, 7 months and 20 days service. The petitioner was not paid pension. He made representation to respondent No.3. However, vide Annexures P-4 and P-5, the claim of the petitioner for invalid pension was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that while discharging him, it was specifically mentioned that he was being discharged on invalid pension vide Annexure P-1 and rejection of his claim vide Annexures P-4 and P-5 on the ground that he has not completed requisite service of 10 years for claiming pension is erroneous as the condition of 10 years minimum service cannot be applied in the case of 'Invalid Pension'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Versus State of Haryana 2000(1) SCT 149 and contended that a similar Rule, i.e., Rule 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable in the State of Haryana, have been interpreted by this Court wherein it has been held that the condition of 10 years of qualifying service for grant of invalid pension is not necessary and therefore, he is entitled to the invalid pension. However, Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has vehemently opposed the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner and has stated that since the case of the petitioner is not covered under Rules 38 and 49-B of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972,(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), therefore, no relief can be granted to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The fact that petitioner was discharged from service on invalid pension could not be CWP No.3329 of 1991 3 disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India. It could also not be disputed by him that minimum of 10 years of service is required for grant of pension under Rule 49-B of the Rules, whereas no such requirement is mentioned for grant of invalid pension under Rule 38 of the Rules. In Mohinder Singh's case(supra), this Court had the occasion to interpret Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable in the State of Haryana. The pith and substance of these rules is para materia to Rule 38 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. While interpreting Rule 5.11 and 5.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable in the State of Haryana, this Court observed as under:- “The petitioner's claim for pensionary benefits has been declined on the premises that he has rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service and as such is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The question, as to whether, the employee who has been retired on medical grounds prior to having rendered 10 years qualifying service was entitled to pensionary benefits came up for consideration in Raghbir Chand V. State of Haryana, 1997(1) S.C.T. 503. While examining the provision of Rule 5.11 extracted above, this court concluded that the aforesaid rule specifically dealt with retirement based on bodily or mental infirmity leading to incapacity for service. Whereas the general rule for grant of pension related to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation wherein 10 years of qualifying service is a pre- condition for the grant of pensionary benefits. In the aforesaid CWP No.3329 of 1991 4 case, it has been held that the general rule would have no applicability for the grant of pension as a consequence of retirement under Rule 5.11. In other words, invalid pension stipulated for retirement on account of bodily or mental infirmity leading to incapacity for service does not require 10 years of qualifying service for purposes of earning pensionary benefits. We duly affirm the aforesaid legal position.” Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to distinguish the aforesaid judgment. Relying upon the above judgment of this Court and the fact that petitioner was discharged from service on invalid pension, I am of the considered view that orders Annexures P-4 and P-5 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of invalid pension are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to grant the pensionary benefits to the petitioner for invalid pension with consequential relief of arrears with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum. It is further directed that arrears of pension be paid within 4 months from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. November 4, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE