JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. 1. Petitioner was employed in Territorial Army under the second respondent. He joined that Army on 31st August 1977 and served in accordance with the bond executed by him upto 31st August 1984. By Ext. P1 letter petitioner was informed that his present term of engagement expires on 30th August 1984 and if he is willing to serve further in the Territorial Army he has to send his willingness along with an application for extending his service. Since he had completed his terms of engagement and he was free to choose not to serve further he expressed his unwillingness and requested that he may be discharged from service with effect from 31st August 1984 as per his letter, Ext. P 2 dated 23rd August 1984. In reply to that, he was informed that his physical presence is required in the Unit for completing documentation for initiating discharge drill and that his case of discharge will therefore be considered when he reports for annual training camp commencing on 25th September 1984. Petitioner sent Ext. P 4 communication requesting the second respondent to make necessary orders for the issue of discharge certificate. In pursuance to the insistence of the petitioner to get the discharge certificate, it appears that second respondent issued a discharge certificate on 25th October 1985. With that certificate he applied for enrolment in Defence Service Corps (hereinafter referred to as D.S.C.). He was duly selected. He joined the service of D.S.C. on 13th January 1986. On 27th July 1987 he was served with a show cause notice asking him to explain why he should not be discharged from D.S.C. as a case of irregular reemployment. The reason appears to be that he was discharged from service under R.14(b)(iii) of the Territorial Army Rules on the ground of service no longer required. Petitioner submitted his reply to that notice. A copy of that reply is marked in this case as Ext. P 7. His explanation was rejected and he was discharged from service by Ext. P 8 order dated August 1987. That order is under challenge. 2. Notices on this petition were served on the respondents in 1987 itself. Central Government Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed in the case disputing the claims of the petitioner. 3. P 8 order dated August 1987. That order is under challenge. 2. Notices on this petition were served on the respondents in 1987 itself. Central Government Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed in the case disputing the claims of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner was employed in the Territorial Army under the command of the second respondent. He joined the Territorial Army on 31st August 1977. His engagement was for a period of 7 years. That 7 year period expired on 31st August 1984. This is admitted by the second respondent in Ext. P1 communication sent to the petitioner. As per R.14(a) of Territorial Army Rules, 1948 every person enrolled shall, on becoming entitled to receive his discharge, be so discharged with all convenient speed. So the second respondent should have issued the discharge certificate discharging the petitioner from the Territorial Army immediately on his becoming entitled to receive his discharge namely 31st August 1984. But the discharge certificate was issued only on 25th October 1985. That certificate can only be one issued under R.14(a) of the Territorial Army Rules, 1948. Clause (b) of that Rule has no application to the discharge given to the petitioner. Sub clause (iii) of clause (b) of R.14 applies to persons discharged during the period of engagement. It cannot apply to persons discharged on the expiry of the period of engagement. Petitioner having been discharged on the expiry of the period of engagement cannot be treated to have been discharged on the ground of his services are no longer required. So the premises on which Ext. P 6 show cause notice happened to be issued was erroneous. 4. S.4 of the Army Act, 1950 deals with application of the provisions of the Army Act to certain forces under the Central Government. The Central Government may, by notification apply, all or any of the provisions of the Army Act to any force raised and maintained in India. In purported exercise of this power under S.4 of the Army Act by R.187 of the Army Rules, 1954 Defence Security Corps has been brought under the provisions of Chap.3 of the Army Act. Chap.3 of the Army Act deals with Commission, Appointment and Enrolment of personnel in the service. So Chap.3 of the Army Act applies to the personnel in the Defence Corps. Chap.3 of the Army Act deals with Commission, Appointment and Enrolment of personnel in the service. So Chap.3 of the Army Act applies to the personnel in the Defence Corps. S.15 of the Army Act which is in Chap.3 states that every person who has for the space of three months been in receipt of pay as a person enrolled under the Act and been borne on the rolls of any corps shall be deemed to have been duly enrolled and shall not be entitled to claim his discharge on the ground of any irregularity or illegality in his enrolment. It means that any person who has been in the service of the Army for more than 3 months must be deemed to have been duly enrolled and the enrolment shall not be treated, on the expiry of the 3 months period, as irregularly or illegally made. Since the petitioner continued for more than 3 months in the Corps drawing pay as a member of Defence Service Corps, he would be deemed to have been duly enrolled under S.15 of the Army Act. This is a statutory presumption which enures to the benefit of the petitioner. Petitioner in this case, joined the Defence Service Corps which is governed by Chap.3 of the Army Act 13th January 1986. He continued to be a member of that Corps for more than sixteen months. Ext. P 6 show cause notice is dated 27th July 1987 i.e. it was issued more than 1 1/2 years after his enrolment as a member of the Corps. At that distance of time, after he was enrolled validly in the Corps for more than 18 months, cannot be considered or treated to have been enrolled illegally or irregularly. Therefore, order Ext. P 8 issued in pursuance to Ext. P 6 notice is without jurisdiction. Further the enrolment was interfered with on a totally untenable ground which is illegal under Territorial Army Rules. Thus petitioner's service was terminated illegally violating all norms of fair play. So Ext. P 8 order has only to be quashed. I do so. The consequence is that the petitioner will be deemed to be a member of the D.S.C. with continuity of service. He will be entitled to all the benefits as such. Thus petitioner's service was terminated illegally violating all norms of fair play. So Ext. P 8 order has only to be quashed. I do so. The consequence is that the petitioner will be deemed to be a member of the D.S.C. with continuity of service. He will be entitled to all the benefits as such. Monetary benefits as a member of the D.S.C. must also be paid to him because his services have been irregularly and illegally terminated. Arrears of salary must be paid within one month from today. In case the arrears is not paid within that period, the entire arrears will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the expiry of that one month till the date of payment. Petitioner must be given orders of posting in Defence Service Corps as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from today. The Original Petition is allowed in the above terms. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.