Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 27.9.2006 rejecting the request of the petitioner to count the past service rendered by the petitioner's husband in Indian Air Force with the Civil Service (Police Service). 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, viz., Hameedullah joined in the services of the Indian Air Force on 4.12.1956 as a Corporal. He was discharged from the Air Force on 22.3.1967 after serving ten years and 109 days and he was declared eligible for civil employment. After discharge, the petitioner's husband joined the services of the second respondent as a Sub Inspector and he retired from the said post on 25.4.1995. At the time of retiring, the petitioner's husband served as an Inspector of Police. The petitioner's husband died on 23.11.2001. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband's Air Force service was not counted while calculating pensionary service. For computation of the terminal benefits, the petitioner's husband submitted several representations to count the said service. According to the petitioner, the Air Force Record Office, New Delhi by letter dated 24.2.1999 informed the petitioner's husband that they had forwarded the proforma to the Tamil Nadu Police Department for taking necessary steps to count the service in Air Force for civil pension. Since the petitioner's husband had served less than 15 years with the Indian Air Force, he was not eligible for pension from the Indian Air Force. Hence, the petitioner's husband was not paid the Air Force Pension. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23358 of 2006 and this Court, by order dated 24.7.2006 directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.3.2006 and 31.5.2006 seeking counting of the Air Force service as pensionable service. After the said order was passed by this Court, the impugned order was passed stating that the petitioner's request was rejected without stating any reason. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. After the said order was passed by this Court, the impugned order was passed stating that the petitioner's request was rejected without stating any reason. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, a Government Servant, who is re-employed in a civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation and who, before re-employed had rendered military service after attaining the age of eighteen years, is entitled to count the said service as pensionable service in civil posts provided he has not received any pensionary benefits in the military service. The said Rule has not been considered by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. 5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents relying on paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner resigned from Air Force service and on such resignation, the petitioner's husband forfeit the service rendered and therefore the said service cannot be counted. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband has not resigned and he was discharged from the Indian Air Force and he was also found to be fit for appointment in the civil post pursuant to which the petitioner's husband was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police and retired as an Inspector of Police on 25.4.1995. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner's husband served in the Indian Air Force from 4.12.1956 and discharged on 22.3.1967 after serving ten years and 109 days and he was also cleared for civil employment. The petitioner's husband having not completed 15 years of service in Indian Air Force, he was not sanctioned with any pension or other benefits by the Indian Air Force. The appointment of the petitioner's husband as Sub-Inspector of Police as an Ex-Servicemen is not disputed. After serving in the Police Department as an Inspector of Police, he retired on 25.4.1995, who also died in the year 2001. 9. The appointment of the petitioner's husband as Sub-Inspector of Police as an Ex-Servicemen is not disputed. After serving in the Police Department as an Inspector of Police, he retired on 25.4.1995, who also died in the year 2001. 9. Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 reads as follows:- "16.) Counting of military service rendered before civil employment.- (1) A Government servant who is re-employed in a civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation and who, before re-employment had rendered military service after attaining the age of eighteen years, may opt either, - (a)to continue to draw the military pension or retain gratuity received on discharge from military service, in which case his former military service shall not count as qualifying service; or (b) to cease to draw his pension and refund, (i) the pension already drawn, and (ii) the value received for the commutation of a part of military pension and (iii) the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity including service gratuity [if any along with the interest at the rate of six percent from the date of rejoining by such Government Servant in the civil service or post.] and count previous military service as qualifying service, in which case the service as allowed to count shall be restricted to a service within or outside the employee's unit or department in India or elsewhere which is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India or for which pensionary contribution has been received by the Government: Provided that, (i) the pension drawn prior to the date of re-employment shall not be required to be refunded. (ii) the element of pension which was ignored for fixation of his pay including the element of pension which was not taken into account for fixation of pay on reemployment shall be refunded by him. (iii) the element of pension equivalent of gratuity including the element of commuted pay of pension if any, which was taken into account for fixation of pay shall be set off against the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity and the commuted value of pension and the balance, if any, shall be refunded by him." 10. In the light of the said undisputed facts, the order passed by the first respondent without noticing the statutory Rule, viz., Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. In the light of the said undisputed facts, the order passed by the first respondent without noticing the statutory Rule, viz., Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to consider the rule position, namely, Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and pass fresh orders counting the Indian Air Force service as pensionable service in favour of the petitioner's husband and pay revised pension till the date of death of the petitioner's husband and difference in family pension to the petitioner from 24.1.2001, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.