JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer : (i) to declare that the petitioner is entitled for pension as if he had completed the requisite qualifying services of 15 years with Indian Air Force for the purpose entitlement and computation of pension; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the arrears of pay and pension In view of the above declaration forthwith and also to pay the pension regularly as per rules every month in future; (iii) to grant any other relief which is deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case;" 2. Brief resume of the facts is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on July 20, 1968 and was attested thereto on July 7, 1969. The term of engagement of the petitioner with the Air Force was to be 15 years regular and 6 years reserve service subject to the willingness of the petitioner for further extension of the term. The age of the petitioner at the time he joined the service was 16 years and 133 days. On being asked the petitioner gave his unwillingness for further extension of his service on November 10, 1981 and hence he was retired from service with effect from July 31, 1983 i.e. on fulfillment of conditions of enrollment and on completion of his regular service of 15 years. Along with other papers for retirement, the petitioner submitted his pension papers to his Unit 28 P & S Unit, AP (Accounting Unit Wing A.F.) which were sent by the Unit to the Air Force Record Office. The Record Office did not point out any irregularity in his retirement or his eligibility for the pensionary benefits and a certificate of discharge was issued to the petitioner. When the petitioner was not given any pension he approached the authorities. The Air Force Record Office New Delhi told the petitioner vide communication dated September 2, 1983 that the services rendered by the petitioner were non-qualifying for the purpose of being eligible for pension and as such the pension could not be granted to him. The petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 3 that he could not have been retired unless he completed his terms of engagement so as to be eligible for pensionary benefits. The petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 3 that he could not have been retired unless he completed his terms of engagement so as to be eligible for pensionary benefits. The respondent No. 3 in turn communicated audit objections about payment of 120 days encashment of leave to the petitioner on rendering non-qualifying service of 14 years 133 days. The petitioner was also informed that no condonation of deficiency was possible. 3. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully scanned the material on record. It was canvassed that the petitioner fulfilled his terms of engagement and completed 15 years regular service. Since all other similarly situated persons were allowed benefits of pension on completion of 15 years regular service, the denial of same to the petitioner on the ground of his age not being 17 years at the time of enrollment is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner having rendered the services have earned all pecuniary benefits, including pension and the age at the time of enrollment is totally irrelevant for the purpose of his entitlement for the pension. Para iii(a) (ii) of Defence Service Pension Regulations, Part I, 1961 excluding any period of service before reaching the age of 17 years for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pension or gratuity is per se violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the view that the pensionary benefits could not be denied to the petitioner on the ground of age not being 17 years at the time of enrolment has neither any nexus with the object of pensionary benefits, nor the persons getting enrolled prior to 17 years of age can be put into a separate class having reasonable differentia for this purpose. In my considered opinion disallowing pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground of his age not being 17 years at the time of enrollment had been subjected to hostile discrimination in violation to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having done his job well for 15 years is entitled for pension irrespective of his age at the time of his enrollment. The petitioner having done his job well for 15 years is entitled for pension irrespective of his age at the time of his enrollment. The petitioner had rendered service in the security of his Country in the tender most days of his life and he surrendered the fullest of his youth for the services of Nation, now when he has done what was expected from him, the respondents are most arbitrarily, recklessly and irrationally deprived him of his bare minimum for his survival in the remaining days. The regulations disqualifying the petitioner for payment of pension due to his early enrolment are void abinitio being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The respondents treated the enrollment of the petitioner prior to 17 years of age as legal, regular and valid. The respondents did kept the petitioner in service prior to 17 years of his age and was treated regular for the purpose of computing the terms of engagement to discharge him. If the services of the petitioner prior to 17 years of age are qualifying one for his retirement, it is beyond stretch of imagination to consider the same services as disqualifying the petitioner for pensionary benefits. 5. The result of the foregoing discussions is that the petitioner is entitled to pension as if he had completed the requisite qualifying service of 15 years with Indian Air Force for the purpose of entitlement and computation of pension. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Para iii of Defence Service Pension Regulations (Part 1) 1961 is declared unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondents are directed to pay all the arrears of pay and pension in view of the above declaration forthwith and also to pay the pension to the petitioner regularly as per rules every month in future. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of this writ petition. 6. The writ petitions stands allowed accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******