A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was recruited as Artificer Apprentice (Under-trainee) on 2/08/1979 in the Indian Navy and promoted to ERA-5, the first rank in the Artificer cadre on 6/08/1983 after completion of 4 years of Artificer Apprentice training period. He was promoted to the rank of CHERA (Chief engine Room Artificer) w. e. f. 26. 5. 1992. He claims that during period he acquired certain technical qualificationsand inspite of acquisition of these higher qualifications, he was not promoted in Navy. To make his career better in the civil services suitable to his qualification he askedfor premature retirement. His request was acceded to by the respondents andpetitioner was prematurely released at his own request on 28. 2. 94 for taking up acivil employment. As on the date of his release he had completed 10 years 6 months26days service excluding Apprentice training period of 4 years and 14 years 6months and 26 days service if the Apprentice training period is included. He was notgiven any pension. In the circumstances he sent demand notice dated 24. 7. 96. Whenit was not replied to, petitioner filed this present petition in which he claims that hemay be paid and granted all pensionary benefits w. e. f. , 1. 3. 1994 and also arrearsalong with interest thereon. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the Apprentice Training period is now countable towardsqualifying service for pension. This is the established position in law as settled by theapex Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Dey and another Vs. Union of india andanother (1997) 1 SCC 366 . This is even admitted by the respondents in theircounter-affidavit. Thus 4 years period spent by the petitioner as Artificer Apprenticeis counted and the total service rendered by him comes to 14 years 6 months and 26days. Both the parties agree that this is the service rendered by the petitioner. Thequestion which is to be decided is as to whether on rendering this service petitioneris entitled to pension. ( 3 ) THE respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that since the minimumservice required to earn pension is 15 years and as service rendered by thepetitioner is less than 15 years, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. This isspecified in Regulation 78 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Petitioner alsodoes not dispute that the qualifying service for pension is 15 years. This isspecified in Regulation 78 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Petitioner alsodoes not dispute that the qualifying service for pension is 15 years. However, hesubmits that as the service rendered by the petitioner is 14 years 6 months and 26days and since fraction of the year is more than six months, it should be treated ascomplete one year and in this way total service rendered by him be treated as 15years. In this manner, petitioner becomes entitled to pension. For this purpose,petitioner relies upon the judgment of Bombay High Court decided on 4th and 6/03/1998 in the case entitled Nirvair Singh Vs. Union of india and Others. Bythis common judgment, a batch of writ petitions was decided. In this judgment,division Bench of Bombay High Court has taken note of the controversy prevailing in the year 1990, namely, whether the period spent by such Naval Officers as Artificerapprentice would be taken as training period only or whether it would be included for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The respondents at that time were taking theview that these officials were not entitled to get benefit of training period for computingthe qualifying period of service for getting pension and the Supreme Court in thecase of Anuj Kumar Dey (Supra) conclusively held that the view of the respondentswas wrong and this period was to be counted for computing the qualifying period ofservice for getting pension. It is further observed in this judgment that even after thecounting of the period of Artificer Apprentice certain employees had still not completed15 years of service. Such persons who were petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitionshad requested the respondents that they be permitted to complete their service asper Circular dated 3. 7. 1976 issued by the respondents so that they can qualify forpensionary benefits but their request was not accepted by the respondents bystaling that they should opt for re-engagement for a further period of 5 years but thiswas not accepted by the petitioners. The judgment thereafter proceeds in the followingmanner: 10. 7. 1976 issued by the respondents so that they can qualify forpensionary benefits but their request was not accepted by the respondents bystaling that they should opt for re-engagement for a further period of 5 years but thiswas not accepted by the petitioners. The judgment thereafter proceeds in the followingmanner: 10. "in order to show that the petitioners were ready and willing to completetheir service of 15 years, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed outthe submissions made in the petition as welt as the prayer Clauses andspecifically pointed out that at the time- of admission of the petitions, thepetitioner have requested the respondents not to discharge them at the endof January, 1990 but to permit them to continue in service till they fulfill thequalifying period of service for pension. It is admitted that at the time ofadmission of the matters, as the appeal was pending before the Supremecourt, the Court had not granted interim relief. As interim relief was notgranted, the discharge certificate issued by the respondents was implemented. The discharge certificate which is granted to the petitioner in Petition No. 166of 1990 is as under : "this is to certify that Nirvair Singh, Chief Electrical Artificer, 202349-K hasserved in the Indian Navy from 08 Jan, 1975 to 31 Jan, 1990 as per detailsoverleaf. "similar discharge certificates are granted to all the petitioners. As per thedischarge certificate, the reason for discharge is "on expiry of engagement". From this discharge certificate, it is apparent that all the petitioners weredischarged on the ground that all the petitioner were discharged on theground that their term of engagement has expired. 11. In our view, this apparently, is an erroneous order. In the petitions, it has been pointed out that the Government of India modified the conditions ofservice of sailors by is Circular dated 3/07/1976 (Exhibit "b" to thepetition) and Order No. AD/5374/2/76 dated 9/08/1976 issued by thechief of the Naval Staff (Exhibit c to the Petition ). As per Exhibit B, it has been pointed out that the initial period of engagement of a sailor would be for a period of 15 years, that is to say, a sailor is to be enrolled for a period of 15years. As per Exhibit B, it has been pointed out that the initial period of engagement of a sailor would be for a period of 15 years, that is to say, a sailor is to be enrolled for a period of 15years. Clause (g) (i) of the Circular dated 3/07/1976 also provides that allnew entrants with 15 years initial engagement and such of the existingsailors who re-engage to complete time for minimum pension should sign adeclaration that they will be liable to be recalled to active service, afterrelease upto two years in case of non-artificers and three years in case ofartificers. On the basis of the aforesaid modification in the conditions ofservice of sailors, the Chief of the Naval Staff had issued a Circular on 9/08/1976 which, inter alia provides as under:- "3. Direct entry sailors, Boys and Artificer Apprentices already on less than15 years engagement who re-engage to complete time for minimum pensionwill be required to sign a fresh declaration as per enclosure IV to this letter. " ( 4 ) AFTER discussing this aspect, in subsequent paragraphs the High Court observedasunder: "15. In this view of the matter, in our view, it is apparent that the stand takenby the Department that the petitioners were not entitled to complete theremaining period of service so as to qualify for grant of pension is apparentlyillegal and in violation of the instructions issued by the Chief of the Naval Staffon 9/08/1976. It appears that the Department was under amisconception that the period of service when the petitioners were workingas boy or artificer apprentice would not be taken into consideration so as toqualify it for pension and gratuity. As the reengagement tor limited period wasrefused to the petitioners, the petitioners approached this Court with aspecific prayer that the respondents be directed to reengage the petitionersto continue in service for one year or for the necessary period to completethe minimum qualifying service period of 15 years for the purpose of Pensionaryand death-cum-grauity benefits in terms of Regulations 78 and 79 of thepension Regulations. As stated above, at the time of admission, this prayerwas not granted as the matter was pending before the Apex Court. 16. After the Apex Court s judgment, it is clear that the period during whichthe petitioners were employed as artificer apprentice is required to becomputed for pension and gratuity. As stated above, at the time of admission, this prayerwas not granted as the matter was pending before the Apex Court. 16. After the Apex Court s judgment, it is clear that the period during whichthe petitioners were employed as artificer apprentice is required to becomputed for pension and gratuity. Further, as per circular dated 9/08/1976 the petitioners were required to be given chance of getting reengagement for a limited period so that they can complete the qualifyingservice for pension. However, petitioners were not permitted to complete 15years of service and they were illegally discharged. The petitioners alsosought interim relief, but that was also opposed at that time on the groundthat the main question was pending before the Apex Court. Hence, for nofault of the petitioners and for the fault of the respondents, the petitionerswere not permitted to complete 15 years of qualifying service. In such asituation, the only way which is open is to direct the respondents to considerthat the petitioners have completed the qualifying service of 15 years for thepurpose of getting pensionary benefits, as the petitioners were not permittedto get reengagement for a limited period because of the wrongful insistenceby the respondents that they must accept reengagement for a period of fiveyears. Further, the Regulation itself empowers the competent authority tocondone the deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension upto aperiod of six months. We would further note that in Writ Petition Nos. 166,171, 221, 223 and 365, all of 1990, 268 and 312 of 1991 the sevenpetitioners would have completed 15 years of service if their service prior toattaining the age of 17 years is taken intoconsideration. With regard to theremaining ten petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 172,222, 224, 225 and 369, all of 1990 if their service prior to the age of 17 yearsis taken into consideration, they would have completed more than 14 years ofservice. If the said period is not taken into consideration, they have completedmore than 13 years and 6 months of service or 14 years and few days insome cases. If the said period is not taken into consideration, they have completedmore than 13 years and 6 months of service or 14 years and few days insome cases. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the petitioners beconsidered to be in service for a period of 15 years for the purpose of gettingpensionary benefits as at this stage, after lapse of 8 years, it would not beproper to direct the petitioners to serve the Navy for the remaining period byopting reengagement for one year or few months more". ( 5 ) THUS the aforesaid judgment would make it clear that the main question to bedecided by the Court was as to whether the petitioners were entitled to serve for theremaining period, to enable them to complete the shortfall in the minimum qualifyingperiod for the purpose of pensionary and death-cum-gratuity benefits in terms ofregulations 78 and 79 of the Pension Regulation, 1964. The petitioners in the saidpetitions had in fact requested the respondents to allow them to complete the periodbut respondents were insisting for re-engagement for a period not less than 5 years. Even in the petitions request was made by way of interim relief for allowing thepetitioners to serve for the remaining period in order to complete the minimumqualifying service period of 15 years. The Court noticed that it was the fault of therespondents in not allowing them to do so and in this context the court directed that the petitioners be considered to be in service for a period of 15 years for the purposeof getting pensionary benefits as no useful purpose could be served in directing thepetitioners to serve for remaining period by opting re-engagement for one year orfew months more than after a lapse of 8 years. Therefore, this judgment does not dealwith the question which arises for consideration in this case inasmuch as it does notlay down any proposition to the effect that once the period of service is 14 years and6 months or above it should be treated as 15 years- service. More over situation in thepresent case is diametrically opposite to the one which prevailed in the cases beforebombay High Court. In those cases the petitioners wanted to complete the period of15 years for service by serving for remaining period in order to earn the pensionarybenefits. In the present case petitioner on the contrary requested for pre-maturerelease for better prospects in civil services. In those cases the petitioners wanted to complete the period of15 years for service by serving for remaining period in order to earn the pensionarybenefits. In the present case petitioner on the contrary requested for pre-maturerelease for better prospects in civil services. He never made any request to therespondents to allow him to complete the remaining period for service in order toqualify the period for 15 years. Nor such a request was made in the present petition. On the contrary the whole petition is based on the averments that 4 years servicerendered by him as Artificer Apprentice be counted for pension and in para-9 of thepetition it is stated that according to Navy Instruction 10 years of Service is pensionable. Thus the petition is based on the premise that the petitioner had completed 14 yearsand 7 months service which entitled him to earn pension as pension should beearned after 10 years of Navy service. In the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed bythe respondents the petitioner has referred to the aforesaid judgment of Bombayhigh Court and has annexed the same in support of his submissions that even on thebasis of 14 years of service pension was granted by the Bombay High Court. It has been observed that this course was adopted due to peculiar circumstances in thosecases and finding fault with the conduct of the respondents in not allowing thepetitioners to complete 15 years of service to earn pension which is not the casehere. Therefore, on the basis of 14 years 6 months and 26 days of service renderedby the petitioner he cannot be granted pension. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, in the application filed by the petitioner for placing the additionaldocuments on record, the petitioner has also relied upon the news bulletin for thenavy Personnel known as "the Hamla Bulletin" (Vol. 3 Issue No. 1 January-March, 1999)wherein it is mentioned that deficiency in qualifying service upto 6 months can becondoned. The relevant portion of the said bulletin, which is annexed with the saidapplication reads as under: "condonation for Deficiency in Qualifying Service for Pensionto become eligible for minimum service pension, officers and sailors shouldhave 20 years and 15 years of qualifying service respectively. However,naval Headquarters and Commodore Bureau of Sailors respectively maycondone deficiency in qualifying service upto six months for service pension". However,naval Headquarters and Commodore Bureau of Sailors respectively maycondone deficiency in qualifying service upto six months for service pension". ( 7 ) IT is, however, not stated as to which are the Rules and Regulations whichempower Naval Headquarters and Commodore Bureau of Sailor to condonedeficiency in qualifying service. However, since this is published in News Bulletin ofrespondents themselves, it appears that there would be some provision on the basisof which such a news item has appeared. If the petitioner is granted deficiency inqualifying service upto six months, he would become entitled to the pension. However,since discretion in this respect is vested with the competent authority which is to beexercised on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and on the basis ofguidelines, if any contained in relevant Rules/regulations/provisions which are thebasis of aforesaid news item, this court cannot give any direction to the respondentsto condone the period. The only direction which can be given to the respondents is toconsider the case of the petitioner for condoning deficiency inqualifying service uptosix months for service pension in the light of relevant provision which is the basis ofaforesaid news item. ( 8 ) THIS writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to the petitionerto make an appropriate representation in this behalf seeking condonation in deficiencyof qualifying service and if such a representation is made within one month of thedate of this judgment, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same onits merit and in the light of the relevant provision. No orders as to costs.