JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J 1. The petitioner who is an exarmy junior commissioned officer and was removed from service by the General Court martial and was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment has filed the present writ petition for quashing the proceedings and verdict dated 461977 passed by the General Court Martial. 2. It has not been disputed that the petitioner has worked in Army for twenty six years and one hundred and seven days. The General Court Martial has not passed any order for the forfeiture of the pensionary benefits etc. Now it has to be seen as to whether considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court can direct the army authorities to pay TO the petitioner his pensionary benefits even after the passing of the order of removal by the General Court Martial, Similar questions have arisen in the case of Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India (19911SVLR (L)190) where Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decisions in Lt. Col. (T.S.) Harbans Singh Sandhu v. Union of India and others (Writ Petition No. 553 of 1972 decided on 22111978) and in Religious Teacher Ex N. Sub. R.K. Sharma v. The Chief of the Army Staff & others. (Cr. M.P. No. 349/80 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 244 of 1980 dated 2941980) held as under: held that the services upto the date of punishment have been satisfactory. In Lt. Col. (T S.) Harbans Singh Sandhu v. Union of India & others (Writ Petition No. 553 of 1972 decided on 22111978) a Bench of three Judges of this Court passed an order in favour of the Army officer holding that he was entitled to be paid the entire pension and gratuity under the rules. In passing such an order, this court took into consideration the fact that no other penalty forfeiting the pensionary benefits was passed. Therefore he cannot be deprived of his pensionary benefits. In the instant case also the Court Martial has not inflicted any other punishment of forfeiture of pension or other service benefits of the petitioners. Therefore they are also entitled to these benefits. Accordingly the respondent is directed to pay the entire pension, gratuity and provident fund under the rules to each of these petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order, 3. In the instant case too the same question is involved. Therefore they are also entitled to these benefits. Accordingly the respondent is directed to pay the entire pension, gratuity and provident fund under the rules to each of these petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order, 3. In the instant case too the same question is involved. The petitioner had worked for twenty six years and 107 days continuously in Army with an unblemished record. Undoubtedly, he has been held guilty by General Court Martial, but in view of the fact that he had worked for a considerable long time with unblemished record of his services and the General Court Martial has not passed any order forfeiting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner would be unjust and improper. 4. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, the writ petition partly succeeds. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the entire pension, gratuity and other benefits to the petitioner in accordance with Rules within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner to the opposite parties. No order is made as to costs. (Petition partly allowed)