JUDGMENT : Kurian Joseph, J. The Petitioner challenges the appointment of fifth Respondent. According to the Petitioner, fifth Respondent should not have been awarded 10 marks in the interview on account of unemployment since the father of the fifth Respondent is an ex-serviceman. Being a pensioner and since he is earning pension, the contention of the Petitioner is that the spirit of the policy should be respected and it should be treated that fifth Respondent belongs to a family where one of the members is employed. We are afraid that the contention cannot be appreciated. Pension is one concept and the employment is another concept. Merely because, a member of the family of the fifth Respondent is a pensioner, it cannot be said that one member of the family of the fifth Respondent is in employment. As an employee one receives salary, whereas the pensioner does not receive salary, but only pension. What the policy contemplates is employment not pension. Pension is not salary; but a benefit earned out of service already rendered. Therefore pensioner cannot be held to be in employment receiving wages. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly. 2. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.