Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Dhan Singh, son of Shri Laxman Singh (since deceased) filed this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the order, dated 08.03.1995, of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 748/1995 filed by him. 2. Deceased petitioner appellant Dhan Singh (now represented by his widow) (hereinafter shall be referred to as the deceased) filed the writ petition aforesaid in this Court on 30.01.1995. In the writ petition he prayed for grant of following relief , “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions commanding the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his discharge with all the consequential benefits inter alia order of Non-petitioner No. 3 dated 02.02.1993 (Annexure-4) rejecting mustering out pension claims be quashed being unjust, unreasonable and against law. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or directions or any other relief in the nature thereof as is considered just and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the cost.” 3. The deceased was enrolled in Jaipur Infantry on 01.06.1941 and mustered out from services on 10.1950 after having rendered nine years four months and nine days satisfactory service. It is stated that the deceased had been discharged from the services in consequence of his being unsuitable for absorption in Indian Army. The deceased had rendered his services in war theatre of foreign countries in MEF from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944 and in FMF from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945; he was awarded 1939-1945 Star, African Star, Italy Star War Medals and Defence Medal in recognition of his services in war theatre. In support of his this averment made, the deceased filed the photocopy of the discharge certificate as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. The deceased, in the writ petition, averred that as per the instructions issued under the letter bearing No. F. 142/50/4109/D (GS) dated 30.04.1951 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, where an individual elects the option to receive mustering out concessions under the normal SF Rule, he will be entitled to count his services rendered ex-State in a field service area as double for purposes of pension/gratuity if admissible under the State Rules. The deceased urged that he served in the field area in foreign countries and thus his case is fully covered under the instructions aforesaid issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. The instructions aforesaid have been produced by the deceased on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-2. .5. Despite of aforesaid instructions of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, the deceased has not been extended the pension benefits. The deceased, in the year 1992, sent a notice for demand of justice though his Counsel to the respondent that he had not been given the benefit of pension. One .of the respondents replied the notice sent by the deceased, vide reply, dated 011.1993 and therein it is stated that since he had rendered only of nine years four months and nine days service, he is not entitled for mustering out pension, however, it has been admitted in the reply to the notice for demand of justice that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs. 303 and 12 Annas as muster out gratuity at the time of his discharge from service. 6. As the reply (Annexure-3) to the notice for demand of justice did not make mention of the service rendered by him in war theatres of foreign countries to be counted double for the purpose of muster out pension, the deceased sent a supplementary notice through his Counsel to the respondent for reexamination of his case for pension, but his case do not appear to have reconsidered by the respondents and the deceased has not been extended the benefits aforesaid. .7. The deceased had also made reference in the writ petition of the fact that Jodhpur State Forces, vide Para 4 (g) of the Pension and Gratuity Rules in Jodhpur State Forces, were allowed their services rendered in war theatres of foreign countries to be counted double for the purpose of muster out pension and all those personnel, who rendered their services in war theatres of foreign countries, alongwith the petitioner, were awarded mustering out pension. It is averred that non-award of mustering out pension to the deceased tantamount to discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The deceased has reproduced in Para no. It is averred that non-award of mustering out pension to the deceased tantamount to discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The deceased has reproduced in Para no. 10 at page 5 of the writ petition the extract of Rule 4 (g) of the Pension and Gratuity Rules for Jodhpur State Forces, which reads as under, .War service rendered in Sardar Rasala during the great war 1014-1920 and all the units of the Jodhpur State Forces during the present war counting from the date of an individual embarkation on field service to the date of his return to Jodhpur will count as double for the purpose of pension. The service rendered by the personnel of Jodhpur State Forces in field or concessional area in British India during the present war also count double for the purpose of pension.” 8. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition in limine. It is pertinent to mention here that the reply to the writ petition has been filed in the special appeal. .9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition, the impugned order and the special appeal. We have also gone through the decisions of the different Single Benches of this Court, on which the learned Counsel for the deceased petitioner appellant placed reliance and the particulars thereof are as under, 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7739/2003, Smt. Sajjan Kanwar vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 21.03.2005, 2005 (4) RDD 869 (Raj). 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7760/2003, Sep Ram Kanwar Singh vs. The Union of India & Others, decided on 20.07.2005. 10. The respondents did not accept the claim of the deceased of mustering out pension only on the ground that he had rendered less than ten years of service in the Jaipur State Army. The claim made by the deceased for counting his services rendered in war theatres of foreign countries in MEF from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944 and in CMF from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945, has not been accepted on the ground that there is no such entry recorded in the Long Roll. In case double of the service rendered by the deceased overseas for the period aforesaid is countable for the mustering out pension, the first plea taken by the respondents for denial the benefits thereof needs not to consider. In case double of the service rendered by the deceased overseas for the period aforesaid is countable for the mustering out pension, the first plea taken by the respondents for denial the benefits thereof needs not to consider. Thus, first we advert to the two questions raised whether the deceased had served overseas for the period aforesaid and if served whether double thereof is countable for muster out pension. 11. This defence taken by the respondents otherwise also is an afterthought and not an honest one. After reply, dated 30.09.1992, to the notice for demand of justice sent by the deceased, he sent a supplementary notice for demand of justice, which is produced on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-5 and the same reads as under, “1. That the notice given on behalf of my client dated 05.09.1992 has not been examined in its proper perspective. The fact that my client has rendered 4 years Foreign Service entitling him benefits of double service has altogether been ignored. As per Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. F/142/50/4109/D (GS), dated 30.04.1951 read with their letter No. 142/50/1452/S/D (GS) dated 21.04.1951 my client is eligible to count his foreign service double i.e., 4 years as 8 years. Thus his service works out to be 13 years and as such he is entitled for mustering out pension vide Paras 30 to 32 of Pension Rules for the Jaipur State Forces. You are, therefore, requested to kindly re-examine the case of my client and his case for mustering out pension may kindly be considered. An early reply in the matter is solicited.” 12. The supplementary notice was sent for consideration of the case of the deceased for grant of mustering out pension counting his services rendered by him overseas. For this claim he also made reference to the letters of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, of the year 1951. He also made reference to Para nos. 30 to 32 of the Pension Rules for the Jaipur State Forces. The respondents did not reply the supplementary notice and their this action goes to show that they had no reply thereto. The respondents also not disputed the entitlement of the deceased for mustering out pension as per Para Nos. 30 to 32 of the Pension Rules for the Jaipur State Forces. 13. The respondents did not reply the supplementary notice and their this action goes to show that they had no reply thereto. The respondents also not disputed the entitlement of the deceased for mustering out pension as per Para Nos. 30 to 32 of the Pension Rules for the Jaipur State Forces. 13. The respondents have not produced, alongwith the reply to the writ petition the Long Roll of the deceased. It is no more res integra that to prove a fact for which documentary evidence is available it is the duty of the party raised the plea to place primary evidence i.e., the document itself . The respondents have not produced the document Long Roll and thus this plea taken in the reply to the writ petition cannot be accepted. The matter can be looked into and considered from another aspect. It is almost settled law that where a party in possession of an evidence and more so in this case a documentary evidence and the same is not produced for the perusal of this Court, an adverse inference can be drawn that had the respondents produced it, the same would have gone against them. 14. It is not an oral averment made by the deceased in respect of the period of his overseas service but it is supported by a document issued by none other than the respondents. The document is Annexure-1 i.e., the discharge certificate. Document Annexure-1 is not disputed. In Para No. 5 of Annexure-1, the details of the war services showing theatres of operations with dates are given as under, “5 (a) Medals, decorations or mentions in dispatches -1939-1945 Star, African star, Italy Star, War medal and Defence medal. (b) War services, showing theatres of operations with dates - MEF from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944, CMF from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945.” 15. Entries in the document Annexure-1 have not been disputed on both points i.e., re the period during which the deceased served overseas and the medals he was awarded. 16. (b) War services, showing theatres of operations with dates - MEF from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944, CMF from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945.” 15. Entries in the document Annexure-1 have not been disputed on both points i.e., re the period during which the deceased served overseas and the medals he was awarded. 16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion and on the basis of the material come on the record we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased served overseas from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944 and from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945 and double thereof is countable for mustering out pension and that he got medals, the reference of which has been made in the Para No. 4 of the writ petition. We also do not have any hesitation to hold that the deceased was entitled to mustering out pension as per Para Nos. 30 to 32 of the Pension Rules for Jaipur State Forces as amended vide Jaipur Government Order, dated 19.06.1943. 17. The deceased was discharged from the services in consequence of his being unsuitable for Indian Army. The pledging in this regard has been made in Para No. 3 of the writ petition, which reads as under, “3. THAT as per the discharge certificate, the petitioner is stated to have been discharged from services in consequence of his being unsuitable for absorption in Indian Army.” 18. The averments made in Para No. 3 of the writ petition have not been denied. The defence of the respondents is that the letter of the Government of India, dated 30.04.1951 is applicable only to those personnel of the State Forces, who had been discharged on the ground of reorganization of the State Forces, consequent upon Federal Financial Integration. The deceased was discharged from the State Forces on account of his being unsuitable for absorption in the Indian Army and thus he is not entitled for this benefit. We do not find any substance and merit in this defence of the respondents. 19. Undisputedly the respondents had granted the deceased mustering out gratuity and the reference fruitfully may have to Regulation 316 of the Pension Regulations for the Armed Forces in India, 1940 (for short Regulations of 1940), which is quoted as under, “316. Viceroys Commissioned Officer and other Ranks of the Indian Army and similar rank holding combatant status in ancillary services, including reservist. Viceroys Commissioned Officer and other Ranks of the Indian Army and similar rank holding combatant status in ancillary services, including reservist. The Governor General may, at his discretion, sanction the grant of mustering out the pension and gratuity to the individual of above categories in the following circumstances; .(a) Discharge on account of disbandment of a unit an consequent elimination of its reserve. .(b) Discharge on account of reduction of establishment. .(c) Discharge on becoming unsuitable for retention owing to change of class composition, provided that the individual cannot be absorbed in another unit. .(d) In any other circumstances approved by the Governor General.” 20. The deceased was discharged on being unsuitable for absorption in Indian Army and thus his case falls under Clause (c) of Regulation 316 of Regulations of 1940. 21. The pension and gratuity are given to Army Personnel or other Government employees to avoid financial crisis, hurdles and difficulties to maintain themselves in their old age. It is a social security provision and wherever the provision is made in relation thereto, are to be interpreted so as to extend the benefit thereof and not to deny them the same. The deceased has made reference to the cases of the persons similarly situated, though belonged to Jodhpur State Forces where they had been given the benefits of mustering out pension. The deceased also raised a plea of discrimination. The pleadings in this regard have been made in Para No. 10 of the writ petition, which read as under, “THAT, in this context, it is further stated that the Jodhpur State Forces were also allowed vide Para 4(g) of Pension and Gratuity Rules in Jodhpur State Forces to count their foreign service as double for the purpose of pension and all those personnel who has rendered foreign service alongwith the petitioner has been awarded mustering out pension. This non-award of mustering out of pension in the case of petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Extract of Para 4(g) of Pension and Gratuity Rules for Jodhpur State Forces. This non-award of mustering out of pension in the case of petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Extract of Para 4(g) of Pension and Gratuity Rules for Jodhpur State Forces. I reproduced hereunder, “War service rendered in Sardar Rasala during the great war 1914-1920 and all the units of the Jodhpur State Forces during the present war counting from the date of an individual embarkation of field service to the date of his return to Jodhpur will count as double for the purpose of pension. The service rendered by the personnel of Jodhpur State Forces in field or concessional area in British India during the present war also count double for the purpose of pension.” 22. The respondents have replied the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition in the following manner, “10. That the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and are replied in terms that since, as per the entry recorded in the Long Roll, the petitioner had not served overseas from 04.02.1942 to 01.07.1944 and in FMF from 18.08.1944 to 210.1945, there was no question of counting this period for the purpose of granting mustering out pension. It is, therefore, denied that there is any discrimination or violation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the case of the petitioner.” 23. The respondents have replied the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition in the terms that since, as per the entry recorded in the Long Roll, the deceased had not served overseas for the period mentioned therein, there was no question of counting that period for the purpose of granting mustering out pension. As regards to this plea taken we have already dealt with the same in the preceding part of the Judgment and held that the deceased had served overseas for the period mentioned in the writ petition and that period is countable for mustering out pension. In the reply to the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition, in the terms aforesaid, the respondents have said nothing re the discrimination made by them to the deceased. In the reply to the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition, in the terms aforesaid, the respondents have said nothing re the discrimination made by them to the deceased. Thus the contents of Para No. 10 stand admitted by the respondents and we have no hesitation to hold that similarly situated persons had been extended the benefits of mustering out pension counting their services rendered in war theatres of foreign countries whereas the same benefits had not been extended to the deceased and it is a case of discriminatory treatment to him. 24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The order, dated 08.03.1995, of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 748/1995, impugned in this appeal, is quashed and set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 748/1995 is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the deceased in war theatres of foreign countries double for the purpose of muster out pension, as per the instructions aforesaid issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, and to fix the amount of pension, calculate the arrears thereof till the death of the deceased and deposit the entire amount so calculated and found payable to the deceased, in this Court. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to fix the family pension of the deceased payable to his widow from the date of his death and the arrears thereof to be deposited in this Court within the period aforesaid. 25. In the facts of this case there shall be no order as to costs. 26. Though the prayer has been made by the deceased for grant of interest on the arrears of the pension but we do not consider it to be a fit case for award thereof . 27. The widow of the deceased is an old lady, possibility cannot be ruled of scattering of the amount of arrears of the pension and family pension, and thus the Court will pass the orders of investment and disbursement thereof after the respondents deposit the same in this Court by an Account Payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order drawn in the name of the Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, within the aforesaid period. 28. The registry is directed to place this matter for investmental disburdenment of the aforesaid amount immediately on its deposition as per directions.