JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petitioners Deen Mohmmed @ Deenia, son of Shri Kasim Khan was enrolled as Bhisty (Water Carrier) in Doonger Lancers of the Erstwhile Bikaner State Army on 1.2.1931. On reorganisation of the State Forces after independence, Doonger Lancers was disbanded and the petitioner- Deen Mohmmed was transferred to Kachhawa Horse, Jaipur on 1.4.1950. Subsequently, on merger of the State Forces with Indian Army, the writ petitioner Deen Mohammed was discharged from the Army at Jaipur 1.1.1951, after 19 years and 11 months services on account of reduction/reorganization of the Unit. A discharge certificate bearing Army No. 1433 was accordingly issued to the writ petition Deen Mohmmed on 15.1.1951 by the Commandant, Kachhawa Horse at Jaipur. 2. As per claim of the petitioner, since he was discharged on account of surplus strength and reorganisation of his Unit having not been found suitable for absorption in the Indian Army after completion of 19 years and 11 months, he was entitled for pension and gratuity under the relevant rules. Though, the Armoured Corps Records were under statutory duty to submit the pension claim of the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed, however, no such claim was submitted before the competent authority. After having failed to get any relief from any of the authorities concerned for grant of pension and gratuity, the case of the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed was taken up by the Bikaner Ex Service Men League before the authorities vide their letter dated 19.12.1994. The details of the service record of the writ petitioner Deen Mohmrned were also given in the said representation. 3. It seems that a regular correspondence was exchanged between the authorities of the Army as well as the Central Government right from February, 1955. It is further borne out from the correspondence that the actual service of the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed works out to 19 years 11 months and 1 day and the same could be counted as 20 years as per Ministry of Defence letter dated 6.8.1989 and thus, the writ petitioner Deem Mohmmed was eligible for grant of normal pension as per Regulations 145 and 146 and even if the above benefit is not given, the 30 days deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension could be condoned under the provisions of Regulation 125. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed was eligible or mustering out/special pension under Regulation 104 read with Regulation 167 of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I. The writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed's case was referred to Army Head Quarter Vide AC Records letter No. 336101/sp/pen dated 18.9.96 and thereafter, the writ petitioner was also informed vide letter dated 21.4.98 that his case for grant of service pension has already been taken up by the Army Head Quarter for consideration but, in view of the delay, proper sanction of the Central Government has to be obtained and that the further action taken on the subject shall be communicated to the writ petitioner as and when the decision is taken by the Head Quarters and the Government of India. 4. Since no decision/action was communicated to the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed, a legal notice for demand of justice was given by counsel of the petitioner to the authorities concerned on 20th January, 1999. It was only in reply to the legal notice, the authorities, vide their letter dated 11.3.1999, informed the counsel for the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed that the incumbent is not entitled for pension for want of confirmation of service details by the Records A.C. Ahmednagar. Having failed to get any positive response from the authorities in regard to payment of pension and other retrial benefits. the writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed submitted a writ petition before this Court on 30th March, 1999 with the following prayers : "i issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof thereby declaring the action of the non-petitioners in not granting mustering out/special pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1951 to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional; ii. issue an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby directing the non-petitioners to grant mustering out/special pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1951 and pay the arrears thereof with interest @24% p.a.; iii. issue an appropriate writ, order or directions to the non-petitioners to pay the petitioner an exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- for delaying payment of his mustering out/special pension w.e.f. 1.1.1951; iv. issue such other writ order or directions as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. A detailed reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, in which an objections in regard to delay of 44 years was raised. issue such other writ order or directions as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. A detailed reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, in which an objections in regard to delay of 44 years was raised. The authenticity of the discharge certificate was also disputed with the averments that from the records maintained, the army No. 1433 was allotted to three different individuals namely Swr Munir Khan, Mohd. Bakshis Khan and Jalam Singh. However, the name of writ petitioner Deen Mohmmed does not figure against No. 1433. The entitlement of pension of the Bhistis, the Post on which the writ petition Deen Mohmmed was initially enrolled in Dungar Lancers Bikaner State Force has, however, not been disputed. 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition No. 1621/1999 filed by the petitioner Deen Mohmmed mainly on the ground of delay and discharge certificate issued to the petitioner Deen Mohmmed been disputed by the authorities. The order dated 24th August, 2001 dismissing the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the present appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner Deen Mohmmed had died and his legal representative; Mr. Kayumuddin was already been brought on record in the writ petition. 7. Mr. Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner submitted that as per the correspondence made between the authorities, the claim of the appellant petitioner Deen Mohmmed had already been admitted. Though, it was incumbent on behalf of the concerned authorities to sanction pension and gratuity to the petitioner-appellant Deen Mohmmed immediately after his retirement, however, it was only because of the delay caused for the reasons of the inaction of the authorities concerned, the matter was sent to the Central Government for issuing proper sanction and as has come on record, no decision as yet has been taken by the Central Government for granting sanction in regard to payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner-appellant. It has further been submitted that objection taken in regard to the delay and also disputing the authenticity of the discharge certificate on behalf of the respondents is wholly mis-conceived and unjustified. The claim of pension is a fundamental right and follows from the Rules and not from the orders sanctioning it. It has further been submitted that objection taken in regard to the delay and also disputing the authenticity of the discharge certificate on behalf of the respondents is wholly mis-conceived and unjustified. The claim of pension is a fundamental right and follows from the Rules and not from the orders sanctioning it. While referring to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5077/1997, Lal Singh v. Union of India and others, decided on 5th January, 1999 , learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner submitted that exactly under the similar circumstances, the petitioner, in the aforesaid case, who was also serving in the Dungar Lancer of Bikaner State, was allowed Mustering Out-Special Pension with interest. He has further referred to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukma v. State of Rajasthan & ors., reported in 2000 (3) WLC (Rajasthan) page 102 and also a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of R.R. Kapur v. Union of India & ors., reported in JT 1999 (5) SC page 400 . 8. Mr. Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, while referring to the detailed reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, raised the same objections in regard to the delay and genuineness of the discharge certificate. 9. After having considered the submissions made at the bar, we have carefully gone through the entire material on record and the judgments cited at the bar. 10. The entitlement for granting pension to the Bhisti (Water Carrier), the post on which the petitioner- appellant was initially enrolled and was ultimately discharged, has not been disputed so far. Specific entries made in the discharge certificate as submitted by the appellant-petitioner have also not been disputed. If a proper discharged certificate has been issued by the competent authority, the authenticity of the same has to be taken as correct, until and unless it is alleged that the same is forged or even the entries, signatures or the official seal put on the discharge certificate are either not authentic or interpolated. Not a single averment has been made in reply to the writ petition in this regard. Even the learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any infirmity in the discharge certificate as submitted by the appellant. Not a single averment has been made in reply to the writ petition in this regard. Even the learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any infirmity in the discharge certificate as submitted by the appellant. Merely because with the same number name of three other persons have also been entered in the record, the enquiry should have been made by the authorities from the persons, who made such entries in the record. Since entries and signatures made in the discharge certificate as issued to the appellant-petitioner have not been disputed, the authenticity of the entries made in the discharge certificate has to be accepted and a valid and legal presumption goes in favour of the appellant- petitioner. 11. As has come on record, the matter of grant of retrial benefits to the appellant petitioner has already been referred to Army Head Quarter. It was only because of the delay that proper sanction from the Central Government was required. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents also submitted that no decision on the claim of the appellant-petitioner has yet been taken by the Central Government and the Army Headquarters. Under the circumstances, in our considered opinion, the respondents are wholly unjustified in denying the claim of the appellant-petitioner for granting him the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with the relevant Rules merely on the ground of delay and non verification form the records. 12. Payment of pension to one Lai Singh under exactly similar circumstances, as per directions of this Court has not been disputed. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukma (Supra) has observed that the cause of action in the matter of pension is recurring and the petition could not be thrown only on' the ground of delay and laches. Moreover, in the present case, there has been a regular correspondence among the authorities themselves in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the appellant-petitioner. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Moreover, in the present case, there has been a regular correspondence among the authorities themselves in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the appellant-petitioner. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.8.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant-petitioner for grant of pension and other retiral benefits as per relevant Rules without considering the question of delay. If any sanction is required from the Government of India, which is also a party to the present appeal, the same may be obtained expeditiously. The respondents are directed to take decision for sanction of pension and other retiral benefits of the appellant- petitioner within sixty days form the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and make the payment of arrears of pension and other retiral benefits till the death of petitioner-appellant-Deen Mohmmed, within thirty days thereafter. Since a very unreasonable and unjustified stand has been taken by the respondents denying retiral benefits to the petitioner appellant Deen Mohmmed and in not deciding his claim for such a long period, the appellant-petitioner shall also be entitled for a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which is to be paid by the respondents alongwith other retiral benefits.Appeal allowed, Judgment of Single Judge set aside, Directions issue to Respondent. *******