JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. These petitions involve common question of law and fact. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Whether Regulation 85 of Pension Regulations (Navy) 1964, providing condonation upto 3 months service for Sailors to earn rank pension except in case of voluntary retirement, would contemplate a situation where upon expiry of initial engagement, the concerned Sailor does not agree or express his unwillingness for further re-engagement is the issue in these petitions. Regulation 85 reads thus:-- "85. Condonation of deficiency of service in a particular rank.—A Competent Authority may, depending on the circumstances of the case, condone a deficiency of service in a particular rank not exceeding three months, except on voluntary retirement." 4. Petitioners in these petitions joined Indian Navy as Sailors. Upon requisite qualifications being attained, petitioners were engaged in service. Petitioner in Writ Petition 282 of 2003 joined service on 15th July, 1985. He was promoted to rank of Petty Officer. On 5/6th May, 2001, he was awarded deprivation of 3rd Good Conduct Badge. It appears that he had made an application for redressal on 14th December, 2001. On 28th February, 2001 Head Quarters, WNC, was of the view that his application for redressal deserved to be considered favourably and forwarded the same to respondent No. 3. Thereupon, respondent No. 3 informed Head quarters that there is no provision to review a summary punishment. It appears that petitioner once again made representation to respondent No. 3 so that he could be promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer. However, his application was returned back on 28th August, 2002 by respondent No. 3. Petitioner approached this Court to challenge these proceedings. This Court by an order dated 18th February, 2003 directed that petitioners representation be considered by the authorities under the Navy Act. The Competent Authority was directed to pass, as expeditiously as possible, an order thereon and preferably within a period of eight weeks from said order of this Court. 5. Pursuant to these directions, representation of petitioner was considered. It appears that representation raised two fold grievances; one pertaining to the promotion as Chief Petty Officer and secondly condoning deficiency in service with a view to enable petitioner to earn pension. 5. Pursuant to these directions, representation of petitioner was considered. It appears that representation raised two fold grievances; one pertaining to the promotion as Chief Petty Officer and secondly condoning deficiency in service with a view to enable petitioner to earn pension. In so far as the date of promotion is concerned, the finding rendered by Competent Authority is that petitioner has been promoted on the correct date. 6. In so far as second grievance is concerned, it was observed that on 23rd April, 1999, petitioner forwarded a lesser period certificate in which he had clearly stated that he "opts to sign" for lesser period due to personal reasons. According to Competent Authority this was given in response to expiry of engagement serial in which an offer of re-engagement is made. In the opinion of the authorities by giving lesser period certificate, petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. In the further view of the authority the certificate was given at the time of initial engagement period. Petitioner had applied for N.O.C. in which unwillingness for further service has been re-confirmed. It is the view of the Competent Authority that petitioner did not revoke his unwillingness for further service. In the view of the authority three opportunities to revoke unwillingness (Voluntary Retirement) having not been availed of, it is not possible to condone the period required for earning rank pension. The main conclusion of the authority is that since petitioner had voluntarily retired, the deficiency in service cannot be condoned. Secondly, it is ordered that petitioner is not eligible for condonation of deficiency so as to enable him to earn rank pension. 7. After amendments, petitioner in W.P. 284 of 2003 has confined his prayer only for rank pension and has given up challenge to the order dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by Competent Authority insofar as it deals with the issue of promotion as Chief Petty Officer. 8. Petitioner in W.P. 129 of 2004 has also joined Indian Navy as direct entry sailor. He was also promoted to the rank of Petty Officer. He was released from Indian Navy in 2002 on expiry of initial engagement i.e. 15 years. It is his case that by representation dated 18th August, 2003 be applied for condonation of deficiency in service of 2 months in the rank of Petty Officer under Regulation 1985. Respondent No. 3 has not passed any order thereon. He was released from Indian Navy in 2002 on expiry of initial engagement i.e. 15 years. It is his case that by representation dated 18th August, 2003 be applied for condonation of deficiency in service of 2 months in the rank of Petty Officer under Regulation 1985. Respondent No. 3 has not passed any order thereon. However, in personal visit, he was informed orally that he had voluntarily retired from Indian Navy and, therefore he is not entitled to rank pension. He has challenged the refusal to consider him for grant of rank pension in this petition. 9. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the interpretation in the impugned order of the relevant regulations is wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. After inviting our attention to the provisions of Navy Act, more particularly sections 11, 12 and 14 to 17 thereof, he contended that the words "discharged, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, release" are independent and distinct concepts. He contends that Legislature has inserted these words in sections and sub-sections thereof, with a clear intent that a Sailor or an officer of Indian Navy, ceases to be in service in these situations. He further contends that regulations for the Navy IIIrd Statutory, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence in section IV thereof provide for discharges. Regulation 278 thereunder contemplates discharge of unsuitable incumbent or undesirable sailors. He invites our attention also to Regulations 279 and 280. Further, he took us through the provisions pertaining to re-engagement in Navy Order. Thereunder, ages of superannuation are prescribed and Clause 13 therein deals with unwillingness for re-engagement. 10. In substance, the contention of Shri Mehta, is that for the purpose of receiving pension at the payscale of Chief Petty Officer, petitioner was required to have atleast 10 months service in the rank of Chief Petty Officer. Petitioner served in the said rank for nine months. There was deficiency in service of one month in the said rank for entitlement to pension at that payscale. Such a deficiency is condonable under Regulation 85. He submits that petitioner was discharged on expiry of his engagement on 31st July, 2002. Such discharge on expiry of engagement is not voluntary retirement and will not fall within the exception contained in Regulation 85. Thus petitioner was entitled to condonation of deficiency of the said period. 11. Mr. Such a deficiency is condonable under Regulation 85. He submits that petitioner was discharged on expiry of his engagement on 31st July, 2002. Such discharge on expiry of engagement is not voluntary retirement and will not fall within the exception contained in Regulation 85. Thus petitioner was entitled to condonation of deficiency of the said period. 11. Mr. Mehta submits that prior to expiry of engagement, petitioner was given option to re-engage in the Indian Navy upto a period of three years. Petitioner opted to re-engage only for a period of two years instead of three years. He submitted a lesser period certificate on 23rd April, 1999. In view of this, petitioner was engaged for a further period of two years from 31st July, 2000 i.e. upto 31st July, 2002 and was discharged thereafter. By opting to re-engage for lesser period, petitioner has not voluntarily retired from the service. The voluntary retirement, if any, contemplated by the regulations is retirement on compassionate ground and there is nothing like voluntary retirement from Naval service. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents contended before us that interpretation placed by the authorities on Regulation 85 is the only interpretation possible. He contends that neither the same is in any way erroneous, illegal but cannot be also said to be arbitrary or ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that contention of petitioner, has no force inasmuch as, when petitioner declined the offer of re-engagement for period of three years, by curtailing it to a period of two years, petitioner really sought voluntary retirement from the service. The offer having already been made for three years and petitioner accepting it for a lesser period, has no significance, inasmuch as, what is material and relevant in this case, is the period of engagement. Period of engagement is like employment for a particular and stipulated period and a person opting out therefrom voluntarily retires from the service of Indian Navy. That being the position, he submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Mr. Suresh Kumar, has also placed reliance upon Navy Regulations to which a reference has been made by us hereinabove. 13. For properly appreciating rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to few relevant provisions. That being the position, he submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Mr. Suresh Kumar, has also placed reliance upon Navy Regulations to which a reference has been made by us hereinabove. 13. For properly appreciating rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to few relevant provisions. Navy Act, 1957 is an Act to consolidate and amend law relating to Government of Indian Navy. Section 2 thereof makes a provision subjecting persons covered therein to Naval law. In so far as definitions are concerned, definition of the terms, Officer, Petty Officer, Sailor, are relevant. They are to be found in section 3(16), (17) and (20). Chapter IV of Navy Act deals with commissions, appointments and enrollments. Section 11 deals with enrollment which reads thus:- "11. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the terms and conditions of service of sailors, the person authorised to enroll for service as sailors and the manner and procedure of such enrollment shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall be enrolled as a sailor in the Indian Navy for a period exceeding twenty years in the first instance; Provided that in the case of a minor the said period of twenty years shall be reckoned from the date on which he attains the age of seventeen; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for time being in force; (a) the enrollment of any person under this Act shall be binding on him both during his minority and after he attains majority; (b) neither the parent or guardian of a minor duly enrolled under this Act nor any other person shall be entitled to claim custody of the said minor as against the Central Government or any of its officers or other persons set over him." A bare perusal of the said section indicates that terms and conditions of service of sailors, persons authorised to enroll for service as sailors and manner and procedure for such enrollment shall be such as may be prescribed. Of course, sub-section (1) of section 11 opens with words "save as otherwise provided in this Act". As to why these words are incorporated is clear from sub-section (2) of section 11 which prescribes outer limit of enrollment. Section 12 deals with validity of enrollment. That provision incorporates a bar from discharge. Of course, sub-section (1) of section 11 opens with words "save as otherwise provided in this Act". As to why these words are incorporated is clear from sub-section (2) of section 11 which prescribes outer limit of enrollment. Section 12 deals with validity of enrollment. That provision incorporates a bar from discharge. Chapter V deals with conditions of service and sections 14, 16, 17 and 18 are relevant which are reproduced hereinbelow. "14. Liability for service of officers and sailors:---(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), officers and sailors shall be liable to serve in the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, as the case may be, until they are duly discharged, dismissed, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released; (2) No Officer shall be at liberty to resign his office except with the permission of the Central Government and no sailor shall be at liberty to resign his post except with the permission of the prescribed officer; (3) The acceptance of any resignation shall be a matter within the discretion of the Central Government or the officer concerned, as the case may be; (4) Officers retired or permitted to resign shall be liable to recall to naval service in any emergency in accordance with regulations made under this Act and on such recall shall be liable to serve until they have been duly discharged dismissed, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released." 16. Discharge on expiry of engagement:—Subject to the provisions of section 18, a sailor shall be entitled to be discharged at the expiration of the term of service for which he is engaged unless :- (a) such expiration occurs during active service in which case he shall be liable to continue to serve for such further period as may be required by the Chief of the Naval Staff; or (b) he is re-enrolled in accordance with the Regulations made under this Act; 17. Provisions as to discharge:---(1) A sailor entitled to be discharged under section 16 shall be discharged with all convenient speed and in any case within one month of his becoming so entitled; Provided that where a sailor is serving overseas as the time be becomes entitled to be discharged he shall be returned to India for the purpose of being discharged with all convenient speed, and in any case within three months of his becoming so entitled; Provided further that where such enrolled person serving overseas does not desire to return to India, he may be discharged at the place where he is at the time; (2) Every sailor discharged shall be entitled to be conveyed free of cost from any place he may be at the time to any place in India to which he may desire to go; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-sections, an enrolled person shall remain liable to serve until he is duly discharged; (4) Every sailor who is dismissed, discharged, retired, permitted to resign or released from service shall be furnished by the prescribed officer with a certificate in the language which is the mother tongue of such sailor and also in the English language setting forth-- (a) the authority terminating his service; (b) the cause for such termination; and (c) the full period of his service in the Indian Navy and the Indian Naval Reserve Forces; 18. Saving of Powers of dismissal by Naval Tribunals.—Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the Award by a Naval Tribunal of the punishment of dismissal with disgrace or dismissal from the naval service under this Act." 14. A reading of these provisions would indicate that discharge, dismissal, dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign or release are distinct and independent concepts. It is true that in some cases the word "discharged" has been interpreted, in the context of the provisions of a particular enactment consisted with the object and purpose sought to be achieved, as nothing but dismissal or otherwise, discontinuation of service. However, considering the phraseology of Navy Act, we find that these words will have to be assigned independent meaning, although, the events which are sought to be covered thereunder would create a situation when these concepts overlap, qua them. But, while interpreting the same, it is not possible to assign similar meaning to these words, although they are used distinctly. However, considering the phraseology of Navy Act, we find that these words will have to be assigned independent meaning, although, the events which are sought to be covered thereunder would create a situation when these concepts overlap, qua them. But, while interpreting the same, it is not possible to assign similar meaning to these words, although they are used distinctly. Section 15 which provides for tenure itself states that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder, the Central Government may dismiss or discharge or retire from the Naval service any officer or sailor. It appears that the words "dismissed" and "sailor" have been inserted by the amendment to the Act and were not to be found when the enactment initially was placed on statute book. Similarly, we find from a perusal of section 15 that within the category of discharge, a further eventuality is carved out when a sailor is entitled to be discharged at the expiry of the term of service for which he is engaged. Our interpretation gets further fortified if one peruses section 16(6) minutely. Therein, a concept of re-enrollment in accordance with the Regulations is specifically incorporated. Section 17 is a specific provision for discharge. There reference is made to section 16 and it is specifically stated that an enrolled person shall remain liable to serve until he is discharged. In our view, therefore, the word "discharged" cannot be interpreted out of context by assigning to it a general meaning or a meaning understood in common parlance. The word will have to be interpreted in the manner understood by Navy Act. Ultimately whole purpose of enacting the Navy Act is to make it possible for the Central Government to recruit sailors and officers not only on permanent basis but for restricted periods as well. An interpretation which will enable the authorities to engage persons as and when required for performance from naval services should be placed on these provisions. An interpretation which would advance the purpose and object of Navy Act and sub-serving discipline contemplated thereunder will have to be placed not only on the provisions referred to above but also generally and specifically on the regulations dealing with conditions of service. An interpretation which would advance the purpose and object of Navy Act and sub-serving discipline contemplated thereunder will have to be placed not only on the provisions referred to above but also generally and specifically on the regulations dealing with conditions of service. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Act and Regulations take care of a situation where an option is given to a person to re-enroll or re-engage himself in naval service upon expiry of the initial period of engagement. Barring such a case, a person entering the Naval services had no choice but to serve and cannot leave the same except as provided hereinabove. If we uphold the submissions of respondents we would be introducing voluntary retirement in naval services which concept is conspicuous by its absence in the Navy Act. We will have to see whether situations listed above contemplate voluntary retirement. 15. It is not possible for us to uphold the submission of Shri Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for respondents that the case of petitioner is a case of nothing but voluntary retirement. In our view, considering the fact, situation, petitioner cannot be said to have voluntarily retired from naval service. At the cost of repetition, it is necessary to emphasise that section 14 of Navy Act, 1957 contemplates a situation not just of a sailor being simplicitor discharged, dismissed, dismissed with disgrace, retired but permitted to resign or release. At the most a situation where an Officer or a Sailor is permitted to resign can be equated with voluntary retirement. However, even that would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general Rule can be laid down. The case in hand where petitioner upon expiry of initial period of re-engagement, exercises option to re-engage himself for a lesser period instead of the period offered by the authorities, he cannot be said to have voluntarily retired from service. Ultimately, one cannot lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a beneficial provision like pension. An interpretation which will not deprive the employee of pension, should normally be placed on such provision unless it is impossible to do so. Ultimately, one cannot lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a beneficial provision like pension. An interpretation which will not deprive the employee of pension, should normally be placed on such provision unless it is impossible to do so. A provision of this nature should not be interpreted to deprive the employee totally of pension because as is well settled pension is neither a bounty or charity but is a reward which an employee earns as a matter of right for the service rendered by him. In the matter in hand, it is nobodys case that the petitioner has not fulfilled and completed satisfactorily the period of engagement initially prescribed. Further, it is not a case where petitioner has subjected himself to a stipulation of three years totally. By a letter of 23rd April, 1999 itself, petitioner had made it clear that he is not interested in re-engagement for a period of three years but would only make himself available for two years. Despite receipt of this letter, authorities chose to re-engage petitioner by accepting his offer/option of lesser period. Therefore, upon that period coming to an end, petitioner was not obliged to offer himself for the remainder of the period. In such cases, Regulation 85 ought to have been pressed into service to condone the deficiency for earning pension in the rank of Chief Petty Officer. Admittedly, Regulation 85 confers power to condone the said deficiency. That power has to be exercised reasonably fairly and in consonance with the constitutional mandate referred to above. In the case in hand, deficiency in Writ Petition No. 284 of 2003 is of one month whereas W.P. 129 of 2004 the deficiency is of two months. Regulation 85 empowers condoning of deficiency for a period not exceeding three months. Therefore, once we are of the view that petitioner has not voluntarily retired from service then he is entitled to the benefits of Regulation 85 and on the strength of the same to earn pension in a particular rank. 16. It is contended that the only type of voluntary retirement that is possibly contemplated by regulations is retirement on compassionate ground. This provision is a provision of discharge on compassionate ground. This is contemplated by Regulation 280 which reads as under:-- "280. 16. It is contended that the only type of voluntary retirement that is possibly contemplated by regulations is retirement on compassionate ground. This provision is a provision of discharge on compassionate ground. This is contemplated by Regulation 280 which reads as under:-- "280. Discharge on compassionate grounds:---(1) Sailors may, in exceptional cases, obtain their discharge in India on extreme compassionate grounds, that is to say, in cases in which it is clear that undoubted material hardship to the sailor or dependents is involved by his retention in the service. (2) Discharge shall not be claimed as a right, however, and nothing in these Regulations shall interfere with the power of the Government to suspend discharge on compassionate grounds or to refuse discharge in particular case. (3) Applications submitted other than by the serving individual shall not be considered, and the applicant informed accordingly. Serving sailors in respect of whom an application is approved, wishing not to be discharged subsequently, shall be required to furnish a signed statement to this effect. (4) Applications for discharge on compassionate grounds shall be forwarded by the commanding officer through the Administrative Authority to the Captain Naval Barracks for transmission to the Chief of the Naval Staff. They shall be scrutinised and if the grounds appear to be reasonable, reference shall be made by the Chief of the Naval Staff to the Deputy Commissioner or Collector of the District concerned for verification of the circumstances stated therein and for an opinion as to whether or not the application for discharge is justifiable. (5) Applications that have been subjected to investigation, and have received the recommendations of the Civil Authorities, shall be submitted to the Chief of the Naval Staff, who shall be the Competent Authority to determine whether or not the application for discharge on compassionate grounds is to be granted. Personnel whose request for premature discharge from service under such circumstances is granted by the Chief of the Naval Staff, shall, if required, be liable to serve for the unexpired portion of their original service engagement in the Fleet Reserve in addition to the period for which they are normally required to serve in the Fleet Reserve under the terms of their original engagement. If the sailor is required for Reserve Service, the order granting the discharge shall clearly specify in each case:-- (a) that the discharge is restricted to his obligation to render service for the unexpired portion of such engagement, and (b) that he will be required to serve in the Fleet Reserve for-- (i) the unexpired portion of the service engagement; (ii) and for the full period of his original reserve Service engagement thereafter; If he is not required for Reserve Service, the order granting the discharge shall so specify. A declaration in writing according to the above conditions shall be obtained from him prior to his actual discharge from service." 17. Even perusal of this Regulation indicates that in exceptional cases, sailors may obtain discharge on extreme compassionate ground i.e. in case in which there is undoubted material hardship to the sailor or dependents by retention in service. Discharge on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a right and the Government is empowered to suspend discharge on compassionate ground or to refuse the request made in that behalf. Even this regulation contemplates making of application and its consideration and scrutiny by higher authorities. It is clear that if such an application is accepted even then authorities can call upon the sailor to serve the unexpired portion of their original service engagement in addition to the period for which the sailor is normally required to serve under the terms of their original engagement. We are doubtful as to whether this can be equated with voluntary retirement as understood in service jurisprudence. Voluntary retirement is equated normally with voluntary resignation, even under beneficial schemes framed by authorities in that behalf. We do not wish to express a final opinion on the issue whether discharge contemplated under Regulation 280 could be said to be voluntary retirement. Prima facie, we are of the view that this concept is also distinct and cannot be equated with voluntary retirement as is normally and commonly understood in service jurisprudence. Further, our attention is invited to Regulation 281 wherein, below the chart, grounds of discharge have been specified along with details of Competent Authority and manner of discharge. Item IV therein reads as under:-- Grounds of Discharge Competent Manner of Authority to discharge authorise discharge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. ----- II. ----- III. ----- IV. Discharge at his Captain Naval with the prior own request before Barracks. Item IV therein reads as under:-- Grounds of Discharge Competent Manner of Authority to discharge authorise discharge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. ----- II. ----- III. ----- IV. Discharge at his Captain Naval with the prior own request before Barracks. approval of the fulfilling the condi- Chief of Naval Staff tions of his enrolment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item II therein reads thus:-- "on completion of the period of active service engagement or re-engagement when the sailor is not eligible under the fleet reserve regulations or is not required under the order of the Chief of Naval Staff to be transferred to the fleet reserve" Thus by their very nature these are independent situations brought under the purview for power of discharge by the regulations. Therefore, once we are of the view that the parent Act has borne in mind clearly the distinction between discharge, dismissal, release other than by permission to resign, then it is not possible to construe these regulations as contemplating and covering a situation of voluntary retirement. 18. Part II dealing with re-engagement of sailors is also relevant for our purpose and has been pressed into service. It is stipulated therein that non artificers are enrolled for initial period of 15 years calculated from the date of enrolment or attaining 17 years age whichever is later under the provisions of Regulation 269 of Regulations. Part III is amended vide SRO 106/78 dated 28th March, 1978 and period of enrolment for artificers is made 20 years. The said provision deal with re-engagement and carves out principles pertaining to same. Here also it is clear that re-engagement is subject to service requirements and not to be construed as a matter of right. Depending upon requirements of service, a sailor can be re-engaged and that too if he fulfills the conditions. Criteria for re-engagement is also clear because it stipulates that sailors will not be re-engaged if they have submitted willingness for re-engagement for a lesser period or have expressed unwillingness for further re-engagement. Outer limit of re-engagement insofar as sailors are concerned, it spelt out as 3 years and not less than one year. Ages of superannuation of sailors are prescribed and in case of Chief Petty Officer and below it is 50 years. Date of release is also provided for. Outer limit of re-engagement insofar as sailors are concerned, it spelt out as 3 years and not less than one year. Ages of superannuation of sailors are prescribed and in case of Chief Petty Officer and below it is 50 years. Date of release is also provided for. Situation of re-engagement for lesser period and unwillingness thereof have also been taken care of by the authorities by making appropriate provisions in that behalf. Clause 12 dealing with re-engagement for lesser period categorically takes care of a situation where sailor, who in spite of being eligible for re-engagement for three years, as the case may be, opting to sign for lesser period due to personal reasons, will not be granted re-engagement subsequently after expiry of the period opted for. Unwillingness for re-engagement altogether is also a situation which is taken care of by Clause 13. By no stretch of imagination can these clauses be read to mean that persons covered therein have voluntarily retired. Once re-engagement for a lesser period is also contemplated and option of lesser period is held to be valid, then the mandate is not to deprive such persons of benefits like pension by terming their withdrawal as voluntary retirement. The submission of Shri Suresh Kumar, if accepted would mean that we will have to read into the regulations a provision of voluntary retirement and that too by extending it to cases like re-engagement for lesser period. In our view, there is no warrant for reading in such cases, the concept of voluntary retirement. We are supported in our conclusion by Clauses 17 and 18 of the same set of regulations which compel the sailor to serve up to the period of re-engagement. Therefore, it is clear that all such matters are not as of right. 19. In the case of (Union of India v. R.P. Yadav)1, reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2252 the Supreme Court was considering a case whether an Artificer Apprentice of India Navy after consenting for re-engagement for a certain period is entitled to withdraw the same and the sailor is released from the force as a matter of right. The Supreme Court after making reference to the relevant regulations held in paras 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 as under:-- "21. The provisions of the Naval Str. The Supreme Court after making reference to the relevant regulations held in paras 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 as under:-- "21. The provisions of the Naval Str. 17, leave no manner of doubt that re-engagement of sailors can neither be claimed by a sailor as a matter of right nor can cancellation of re-engagement and release from the force be claimed by a sailor as a matter of right. It is to be decided by the Competent Authority keeping in view the relevant factors, the most important one being the service requirements. 22. From the conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Regulations and the Navy Orders including those noted above, the position is manifest that the Naval Service is to be maintained as a highly disciplined service always kept in readiness to face any situation of emergency. The personnel of the naval service are provided with various facilities and privileges different from those available to other civil services. 23. As noticed earlier in section 16 of the Act a provision is made that a sailor shall be entitled to be discharged at the expiration of the terms of service for which he is engaged. One of the circumstance when this general rule shall not apply is that he is re-enrolled in accordance with the requirements made in the Act. No provision in the Navy Regulations, 1965 has been brought to our notice which expressly or by implication provides that a sailor can at any time during the subsistence of period of re-engagement demand release from service. On the contrary a fair reading of the provisions of the Regulations shows that a very high standard of discipline is to be maintained by members of the Navy Force including sailors. Under Regulation 127 sailors who may have quit their ships without leave, or have overstayed their leave or have improperly absented themselves when detached on duty, and who may be apprehended before the expiration of seven days, beyond the pracints of a dockyard or other Government establishment in which they may have been employed, shall be treated either as absentees or as deserters, according to the circumstances which are to be judged by their respective commanding officers. From provisions in the Regulations it is also manifest that stringent measures of punishment are prescribed for any act of indiscipline. From provisions in the Regulations it is also manifest that stringent measures of punishment are prescribed for any act of indiscipline. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the Naval Force which is entrusted with the sacred duty of guarding the shores of the country against any form of aggression should be a highly disciplined and efficient service. 24. An incidental question that arises is whether the claim made by the respondents to be released from the force as of right is in keeping with the requirements of strict discipline of the Naval Service. In our considered view the answer to be question has to be in the negative. To vest a right to a member of the Naval Force to walk out from the service at any point of time according to his sweet will is a concept abhorrent to the high standard of discipline expected of members of defence services. The consequence in accepting such contention raised on behalf of the respondents will lead to disastrous results touching upon security of the nation. It has to be borne in mind that members of the defence services including the Navy have the proud privilege of being entrusted with the task of security of the Nation. It is a privilege which comes the way of only selected persons who have succeeded in entering the service and have maintained high standards of efficiency. It is also clear from the provisions in Regulations like Regulations 217 and 218 that persons who in the opinion of the prescribed authority, are not found permanently fit for any form of naval service may be terminated and discharged from the service. The position is clear that a sailor is entitled to seek discharge from service at the end of the period for which he has been engaged and even this right is subject to the exceptions provided in the Regulations. Such provisions, in our considered view, rule out the concept of any right in a sailor to claim as of right release during subsistence of period of engagement or re-engagement as the case may be. Such a measure is required in the larger interest of the country. A sailor during the 15 or 20 years of initial engagement which includes period of training attains a high degree expertise and skill for which substantial amounts are spent from the exchequer. 25. Such a measure is required in the larger interest of the country. A sailor during the 15 or 20 years of initial engagement which includes period of training attains a high degree expertise and skill for which substantial amounts are spent from the exchequer. 25. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the strength of the Naval Force to be maintained is to be determined after careful planning and study. In a situation of emergency the country may ill afford losing trained sailors from the force. In such a situation if the sailors who have completed the period of initial engagement and have been granted re-engagement demand release from the force and the authorities have no discretion in the matter, then the efficiency and combat preparedness of the Naval Force may be adversely affected. Such a situation has to be avoided. The approach of the High Court that a sailor who has completed 15 years of service and thereby earned the right of pension can claim release as a matter of right and the authority concerned is bound to accept his request does not commend us. In our considered view, the High Court has erred in its approach to the case and the error has vitiated the judgment." These observations completely answer the submissions of the respondents. However, the Supreme Court was no considering the issue of interpretation of Regulation 85 which is directly raised before us. The exceptions in the Regulations other than Regulation 85 themselves take care of the situation of a re-engagement of a lesser period and define the powers and obligations. 20. In the light of the above discussion, it is not possible for us to sustain the conclusion reached by the authorities in the impugned order. In our view, the rejection of petitioners representation is erroneous as we are not in agreement with the finding therein that by giving lesser period certificate, petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement. It appears that the authorities were of the view that they could have called upon the petitioner to revoke his unwillingness and petitioner having not complied with the same the authorities have reiterated their plea of voluntary retirement. In our view, both these conclusions being erroneous and unsustainable, petitioners are entitled to benefit of Regulation 85 and the deficiency was liable to be condoned. We proceed to condone the same. In our view, both these conclusions being erroneous and unsustainable, petitioners are entitled to benefit of Regulation 85 and the deficiency was liable to be condoned. We proceed to condone the same. We hold that petitioner are entitled to earn rank pension. 21. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (SBI v. Sundara Money)2, reported in 1976(1) S.C.C. 822 and in the case of (Hindustan Steel v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa)3, reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 31. In the view which we have taken it is not necessary to consider the pleas based on aforesaid decisions. 22. In the result, Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no orders as to costs. Respondents are directed to pay pension to petitioners in each of these petitions including arrears with interest at 9% p.a. from 28th August, 2002 in W.P. No. 284 of 2003 and from 18th August, 2003 in W.P. No. 129 of 2004. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Rule made absolute accordingly. -----