Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.22105 of 2005. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petitionare that the writ petitioner was enrolled on 3.3.1978 for a contractual period of 17 years in colour and two years in reserve. On completion of Military Training at Artillary Centre Nasik Road Camp, he was posted to 61 Field Regiment on 2.6.1979 and discharged from service on 25.5.1992, After rendering 14 years 82 days, the petitioner was discharged from service as undesirable by Army Headquarters letter No.A/13210/159/AG/PS-2(C) dated 28.12.1988. As per Rule 132 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, the minimum period of qualifying service required for earning service pension is 15 years. Since the writ petitioner had rendered 14 years and 21 days of qualifying service and 61 days non qualifying service, it was stated that the writ petitioner is not entitled to service pension under the Rules. However, at the time of discharge from service, the writ petitioner was paid Rs.18,840/- towards Army Group Insurance Maturity benefits, Rs.21,630/- towards Death cum Retirement Gratuity., Rs.435/- towards Final settlement of account and Rs.19,839/- towards Armed Forces Personnel Provident Fund under the Rules. 3. Hence, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No.22105 of 2005 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the appellant to make regular payment of pension with retrospective effect. Learned single Judge, by order dated 25.2.2009, allowed the writ petition, directing the appellant to process the pension papers and disburse the arrears of pension and the pension amount payable to the writ petitioner within a prescribed period. As against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 5. In the decision reported in the case of N. VENKATRAMANI v. INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER (2005(2) TLNJ 290), the First Bench of this Court has held that the last spell of service can be treated as one full year and that employee was entitled to get pension. 5. In the decision reported in the case of N. VENKATRAMANI v. INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER (2005(2) TLNJ 290), the First Bench of this Court has held that the last spell of service can be treated as one full year and that employee was entitled to get pension. In the decision reported in the case of ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 767), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the payment of pension is not a charity and that it is in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the evening of life while adopting liberal interpretations. Learned single Judge, following the aforesaid decisions, held that the writ petitioner cannot be deprived of pension merely on the ground of delay. However, the writ petitioner may not be entitled for interest for the arrears from the date of discharge of the duty. 6. Learned Judge has passed the well considered and reasoned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the aforesaid decisions. We see no reason to interfere with the said order. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Four weeks time is granted to the appellant to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.