C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the present writ petition aswell as Civil. Writ Petition Nos. 2831/92 and 1332/93, as they raise commonquestions of law. ( 2 ) THE writ petition No. 2365/92 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to paypension and Gratuity to the petitioner as he has put in satisfactory service of about22 years. ( 3 ) THE facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 22/11/1969, and he was promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar on Februaryii, 1990. The incident took place on 28/04/1991, when L/hav Rajinder Kumarjoined the Unit 31 Armoured Divisional Signal Regiment, It is alleged that he wassmelling of liquor and was quarrelling with troops of the unit over an issue of hismissing wrist watch. He was allegedly beaten by the duty JCO and others. Thisresulted into commotion. At that moment, the petitioner, who was Naib Subedaradjutant and Subedar Major G. K. Pillai happened to arrive at the scene during theirroutine round of unit lines. The petitioner gave one or two slaps to those, who werequarrelling in order to bring the situation in control. L/hav Rajinder Kumar washurt in commotion and he sustained some injuries. This was. attributed to thepetitioner and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was invoked. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was jointly tried by the General Court Martial along with twoother persons on the charge under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 read withsection 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the three accused persons, includingthe petitioner, were convicted and each was sentenced to suffer one year s rigorousimprisonment and were punished by dismissal from the service subject to confirmation. The GOC-in-C, Central Command confirmed the findings and sentence on 27/12/1991, but remitted the unexpired portion of the rigorous imprisonment, awarded by the Court Martial. The findings and sentence of the Court, asconfirmed, were promulgated and the dismissal from service of the petitionerbecame effective from that date. The petitioner has since not been paid pension andgratuity for the past service of about 22 years that he had already rendered prior tothe date of his dismissal. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Shri G. K. Pillai in Civil Writ Petition No. 2831/92 wasenrolled in the army on 13/03/1961. The petitioner has since not been paid pension andgratuity for the past service of about 22 years that he had already rendered prior tothe date of his dismissal. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Shri G. K. Pillai in Civil Writ Petition No. 2831/92 wasenrolled in the army on 13/03/1961. He was promoted to the rank of Subedarmajor and had put in more than 30 years of service in Army, when the allegedincident took place. The sentence awarded to the. petitioner was the same asawarded to Shri Shambhu Pershad, as it arose out of the same incident. ( 6 ) THE petitioner Shri Kharak Singh in Civil Writ No. 1332/93 was enrolled assepoy in the Army (Infantory) on 15/12/1971. He had also put in about 20years of service, when the alleged incident took place. The first charge against himwas leaving his patrol without orders from his superior officer and the secondcharge pertained to his entry into the civilian house, an act prejudicial to good orderand military discipline. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to be reducedto ranks, 3 months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from the service. ( 7 ) THE Court Martial did not inflict any punishment of forfeiture of pension orgratuity or other service benefits on the petitioners and the respondents, it isargued, have illegally denied the same to them. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter issquarely covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Majorg. S. Sodhi v. Union of India JT 1992 (4) S. C. 337, which has clearly held that wherethe Court Martial did not inflict any punishment of forfeiture of pension and otherservice benefits, the same could not be denied and withheld. He has further arguedthat the pension and gratuity are not bounty of the State but are legitimate andstatutory rights of its employees and are in consonance of Article 41 of theconstitution of India. The Government employee, who is deprived of this right,must be given an opportunity that such deprival was in accordance with law andwas as a measure of punishment. (D. V. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supremecourt 1923 ). ( 9 ) THE minimum qualifying period of service is laid down in Regulations 132and 139 of the Pension Regulations For The Army 1961 Part I and the same read asfollows: "132. (D. V. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supremecourt 1923 ). ( 9 ) THE minimum qualifying period of service is laid down in Regulations 132and 139 of the Pension Regulations For The Army 1961 Part I and the same read asfollows: "132. Unless otherwise provided for, the minimum qualifying colour servicefor earning a service pension is 15 years. 139. Unless otherwise provided for, the minimum qualifying colour servicefor earning a service gratuity is five years. " ( 10 ) THE punishments, which are awardable by Court Martial, are stated insection 71 of the Army Act, and the same are reproduced as below: "71, Punishments awardable by Courts martial- Punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons subject to this Act andconvicted by Courts Martial, according to the scale following, that is to say- (a) to (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) dismissal from the service; (f)to (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h) forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay, pension or anyother prescribed purpose; (i)and (j ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (k) forfeiture in the case of a person sentenced to cashiering or dismissalfrom the service of all arrears of pay and allowances and other publicmoney due to him at the time of such cashiering or dismissal;the Supreme Court in G. S. Sodhi s case (supra) has referred to other judgments of the Court and held that where the Court Martial has not inflicted any otherpunishment of forfeiture of pension or other service benefits of the petitioners, theyare entitled to such benefits. Reference may be made to paragraph 3 of the saidjudgment:"the two petitioners herein have put in number of years of service. Majorg. S. Sodhi has put in about 17 years of service and was also awarded somemedals for his meritorious service. Likewise, Lt. Col. S. K. Duggal, the otherpetitioner has rendered about 21 years of service without any blemish. Therefore their services upto the date of punishment have been satisfactory. Majorg. S. Sodhi has put in about 17 years of service and was also awarded somemedals for his meritorious service. Likewise, Lt. Col. S. K. Duggal, the otherpetitioner has rendered about 21 years of service without any blemish. Therefore their services upto the date of punishment have been satisfactory. However, we do not propose to examine the other provisions of the Army Actor Rules or Regulations in view of the fact that this Court on two earlieroccasions granted similar relief to the officers who were Court-martialed andremoved from service. In Lt. Col (T. S.) Harbans Singh Sandhu v. Union ofindia and Others (Writ Petition No. 553/72 decided on 22. 11. 78), a Bench ofthree Judges of this Court passed an order in favour of the Army Officer whowas cashiered, holding that he was entitled to be paidthe entire pension andgratuity under the rules. In passing such an order, this Cou took intoconsideration the fact that no other penalty forfeiting the pensionary benefitswas passed. Therefore he cannot be deprived of his pensionery benefits byapplying any of the Regulations. It is held as under:"so he filed the present writ petition to compel the Government to pay himwhat is due by way of gratuity and pension. This was his property and couldnot be taken away except by due process of law. The only provision of lawpointed out to us by Counsel on either side is Section 16 (a) of the Pensionregulation, 1961 (for the Army ). It is found from the records that there is noorder passed under the said Regulation nor is it the case of the Union of Indiain their return that any such order depriving the petitioner wholly or partlyof his pension or gratuity has been made by the President. The inevitableconsequence is that he is entitled to be paid the entire pension and gratuityunder the rules. We direct the respondent to pay the said sum within threemonths from today. "a similar order was also passed in Religious Teacher Exn. Sub. R. K. Sharma v Thechief of the Army Staff and Ors. (Cr. M. P. No. 349/80 in W. P. (Crl)No. 244/80 dated29. 4. 80), by a Bench of two Judges of this Court. We direct the respondent to pay the said sum within threemonths from today. "a similar order was also passed in Religious Teacher Exn. Sub. R. K. Sharma v Thechief of the Army Staff and Ors. (Cr. M. P. No. 349/80 in W. P. (Crl)No. 244/80 dated29. 4. 80), by a Bench of two Judges of this Court. While dismissing the writ petition,the Bench observed that "the Court Martial has not inflicted a punishment on himof forfeiture of Pension or other service benefits and Counsel for the other side hasassured the Court that whatever the pension and other service benefits arepermissible to the petitioner under the law will be given to him. " ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 2831/92has made two submissions; firstly that the judgment in G. S. Sodhi s case (supra) isof no application to the present facts as that case related to a Commissioned Officer,whereas, the petitioner was not a Commissioned Officer and secondly, withholding of pension and gratuity is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation113 (a) of the Pension Regulations, which reads as follows: "113 (A) : An individual who is dismissed under the provisions of the Armyact, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service. In exceptional cases, however, he may, at the discretion of the President begranted service pension or gratuity at the rate not exceeding that for which hewould have otherwise qualified had he been discharged on the same date. "he has sought to distinguish Regulation 16 (a), which related to the officers on theground that the Regulation 113 (a) is mandatory and the pension and gratuity hasto be withheld where an individual is dismissed under the provisions of the Armyact. On the other hand, the President is vested with some discretion to forfeit ornot to forfeit the pension. Regulation 16 (a) is reproduced as follows:"16 (a ). When an officer who has to his credit the minimum period ofqualifying service required to earn a pension, is cashiered or dismissed or removedfrom the service, his/her pension, may, at the discretion of the President, be eitherforfeited or be granted at a rate not exceeding that for which he/she would haveotherwise qualified, had he/she retired on the same date. " ( 12 ) BOTH these contentions are misconceived. " ( 12 ) BOTH these contentions are misconceived. The Supreme Court has clearlysettled the law in Major G. S. Sodhi s case (supra) and it has been categorically heldthat when the Court Martial has not inflicted any other punishment, ,such asforfeiture of pension and other service benefits of the petitioners, the petitioners areentitled to such benefits. The argument that G. S. Sodhi s case would only apply inthe case of Commissioned Officers and it has no application in the present case,where the petitioners were not Commissioned Officers, is of no consequence. Thesupreme Court referred to the judgment in Religious Teacher Ex N. Sub. R. K. Sharmav. The Chief of the Army Staff and Others Cr. M. P. No. 349/80 in W. P. (Crl) No. 244/80 dated 29. 4. 80, which dealt with the case obviously of a non Commissionedofficer. The contention is, accordingly, rejected and the law laid down ing. S. Sodhi s case is held applicable to the facts and circumstances of the presentcases. The second contention is also devoid of any force. The law did not intendto make distinction to the effect that no order was necessary to be passed undersection 113 (a) and the pension and other service benefits could still bewithheldwhereas it was incumbent to pass an order under Section 16 (a) of the Pensionregulations for the Army, 1961, Part I to withhold the pension or gratuity of theofficers. This obviously would violate Article 14 of the Constitution as arbitraryand discriminatory. ( 13 ) FURTHER-MORE, it may be mentioned that Section 71 clearly details thepunishments, which are awardable by Court Martial. Such punishments includedismissal from the service, imprisonment, either rigorous or simple for any periodnot exceeding 14 years, forfeiture of service for the purpose of increased pay,pension or any other prescribed purpose etc. . There is, therefore, force in thecontention that when the Court Martial has chosen not to award punishment offorfeiture of pension and gratuity or other service benefits, the petitioners areautomatically entitled to the same. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the petitioners are held entitled to these benefits. Therespondent is directed to pay the entire pension, gratuity and other such benefits,which are permissible under the Rules to each of the petitioners within two monthsfrom today. Writ petition Nos. 2365/92, 2831/92 and 1332/93 are accordinglyallowed. No order as to costs.