S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application has, inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for withdrawing revoking or cancelling and/or forbearing from giving effect to an order dated 27th December, 1995 as contained in annexure 'h' to the writ application. The fact of the matter is undisputed. The petitioner rendered war services with effect from 15th October, 1940 for about 8 years. After his discharge from Indian Army on 27th May 1948, he had to wait for a considerable period of time in search a suitable employment. He joined Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "corporation") on 19. 12. 64. The petitioner retired from service of the respondent corporation on 31. 1. 82. According to the petitioner, keeping in view the policy decision of the Central Government as also respondent corporation, he should be given the pensionary benefit upon tagging his services rendered by him with the Corporation and the period during which he was in war services. As the petitioner's grievance had not been met he filed a writ application before this court being C. R. 734 (W) of 1991. The said writ application was disposed of by an order dated 6th February, 1995 directing, "in a case such a representation is filed within a period of one month it will be heard and disposed of by the Joint Director of Personnel or a any other competent authority who has vested with the power of deciding such a dispute with a period of three months from the date of production of such a representation and it goes without saying if ultimately the petitioner is entitled for counting of Military service for the purpose, of pensionary benefit, the same will be santioned and paid to the petitioner at a very early date. In case the authority take another decision one way or the other it will be open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for the redress of his grievance if it survives. The Joint Director of Personel after taking a decision will communicate the said order to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. In case the authority take another decision one way or the other it will be open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for the redress of his grievance if it survives. The Joint Director of Personel after taking a decision will communicate the said order to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. " Pursuant to the said direction, a hearing was given to the petitioner and an order was passed which is contained in annexure 'h' to the writ application, inter alia, (1) an order of the Government of India issued in the year 1984 will have no application as the petitioner has retired in 1982. (2) War service can be counted only by the Government where the fund is derived from the consolidated fund of India whereas the fund of Corporation is its own fund. (3) for the purpose of computation of pension continuous service is essential but as the petitioner had been reappointed after a long period of time, services rendered by him during was period cannot be considered for pensionary benefit. The respondent corporation has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition nor anybody has appeared when the case was called on. The respondent No. 4 however, had appeared through learned counsel. The Corporation has framed regulations relating to grant of pension, namely Damodar Valley Corporation Services Ragulations. Regulation 6 of the said Regulation reads:"any matter not provided for in these Regulations shall until requisite provisions in that behalf are made in these Regulations, be dealt with and disposed of, as far as may be, in accordance with the rules and orders issued from time to time by the Central Government in relation to similar matters. " ( 2 ) THE matter relaing to the retiral benefits is covered by regulation 108a of the said Regulations. Sub-Rule (1) of Regulation 108a of the said Regulation reads-"subject to the provisions of this regulation every employee of the Corporation who is substantively appointed in the service of the Corporation against a permanent post and who has retired or retires on or after the 15th August, 1959, shall be entitled to pension-cum-Gratuity under the Government of India Pension Rules in force on the date of retirement of such employee. " ( 3 ) A bare perusal of the said provision would, therefore, indicate that in the matter of grant of pension, Rules framed by the Central Government shall apply. It is not in dispute that Union of India has framed Central Civil Services Pension Rules. Clause 2 of Rule 20 of C. C. S. Pension Rules reads:"war service rendered by a Government servant who was appointed substantively to a civil service or post against vacancies which arose after the 31st December, 1947, shall subject to the conditions specified in sub-rule (1), be treated as military service as provided in rule 19" ( 4 ) THE said rule, therefore, incorporates Rule 19 by reference. Rules 19 (1) and Rule 19 (5) which are relevant for the purpose of the present case read thus :-" (1)A Government servant who is reemployed in civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation and who before such re-employment, had rendered military service after attaining the age of eighteen years may on his confirmation in a civil service or post, opt either- (a) to continue to draw the military pension or retain gratuity received on discharge from military service in which case his former military service shall not count as qualifying service; or (b)to cease to draw his pension and refund- (i)the pension already drawn, (ii)the value received for the communication of a part of military pension and (iii)the amount of death-cum-retiremet gratuity including service gratuity, if any. and count previous military service as qualifying service, in which case the service so allowed to count shall be restricted to a service within or outside the employees unit or department in India or elsewhere which is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India or for which pensionery contribution has been received by the Government" ( 5 ) IT appears that the concerned respondent has misconstrued the provision of the aforesaid rules by seeking to rely upon a GIMF dated 5th August, 1958 in terms whereof the question of break in service and condonation thereof had been referred to. The said government order of 1958 cannot be said to have any application keeping in view the fact that the said pension rules had been framed in the year 1972. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, Rule 89 (1) clearly repeals all office memorandum enforce immediately before such commencement. The said government order of 1958 cannot be said to have any application keeping in view the fact that the said pension rules had been framed in the year 1972. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, Rule 89 (1) clearly repeals all office memorandum enforce immediately before such commencement. By reason of cessation of operation of such memorandums the aforementioned memorandum of 1958 cannot be taken recourse to. In this view of the matter, the Director of the respondent corporation must be held to have misdirected himself in holding that the petitioner's war service cannot be tagged. Question of break in service in the instant case has no application in view of sub-rule (5) of Rule19 of the CCS Pension Rules as aforementioned, as there is no such period has been mentioned. Furthermore in the event sub-rule (2) of rule 20 of CCS Pension Rules applies in the case of the petitioners, the petitioner's case must be considered in terms of Rule 19. The said authority has also taken into consideration a irrelevant factor i. e. pension in relation to war services can be granted only where fund therefor is drawn from consolidated fund of India. No reason has been assigned in support of the said finding. ( 7 ) IN view of the fact that in terms of the regulations issued by the Corporation itself, CCS Pension Rules are to apply mutatis Mutandis and the said provisions of CCS Pension Rules are benefitial to an employee, in my opinion the petitioner must be held to be entitled to such benefit. ( 8 ) THIS application is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 27th December, 1995 as contained in annexure 'h' is quashed and the respondent is directed to count was service of the petitioner for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits of the petitioners. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed .