Judgment : K. Vinod Chandran,J. 1. Army Postal Service (for short "APS") is manned mostly by experienced employees of Postal Department of Government of India, taken on deputation. These non-Regular-Cadre officers taken on deputation and working along with regular cadre officers and other ranks of Army during service mostly in forward areas are given ranks, uniform, pay and other benefits by the Army. However, the Postal employees going on deputation to Army retain their lien in parent department and retire on superannuation under the Service Rules of the Postal Department. Respondent is one such person who went from Postal Department on deputation to the Army, served rest of his service in the Army, availed housing loan from the Postal Department by virtue of his lien in service, retired at the age of 58 in the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel, though regular Army Lieutenant Colonel retires at the age of 52. While every similarly placed Postal employee retiring after service in the Army claim retirement benefits and pension from Postal Department, respondent wants pension from Army as a retired Lieutenant Colonel which is declined. It is this unique claim of the respondent to have duration of service under Postal Service by virtue of his lien; and pension from Army that led to the complex litigation in two High Courts. 2. The Union of India and its Officers are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing computation of pension and other benefits due to the respondent treating him as having retired from the Army as Lieutenant Colonel, with effect from 30.04.2000. The review petition filed by the official respondents in the writ petition was also dismissed. The judgment in the writ petition and also the order in the review petition are both assailed in this appeal. Both the judgment and the order relied on Exhibit P16 judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to hold that the respondent is entitled for retirement benefits as a Lieutenant Colonel retired from the Army. The respondent has also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the judgment in the writ petition. 3. The facts as discernible from the writ petition are as follows: The respondent was first appointed as a Time Scale Clerk on 14.02.1963 in the Department of Posts, Kerala Circle. The respondent has also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the judgment in the writ petition. 3. The facts as discernible from the writ petition are as follows: The respondent was first appointed as a Time Scale Clerk on 14.02.1963 in the Department of Posts, Kerala Circle. In the year 1965, willingness was called for from employees of the Department of Posts for serving in APS. The respondent was then appointed as Warrant Officer on 21.09.1965 on the establishment of the Regular Army by Exhibit P1 dated 10.06.1971. Subsequently, the respondent was appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the rank of Naib-Subedar by Exhibit P2 dated 18.10.1979 with effect from 9.10.1973. The respondent then was granted a Commission and was appointed as a Commissioned Officer in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by Exhibit P3 dated 18.10.1979 with effect from 28.07.1976. The respondent claims that subsequently he was granted his due promotions in the higher ranks and was eventually promoted as an Acting Lieutenant Colonel by Exhibit P5 and subsequently regularised in the rank. While so, by Exhibit P9 the respondent was requested to make an application for extension of service in the APS by reason of his impending expiry of deputation on account of superannuation and consequent relinquishment of the Temporary Commission in APS. As an alternative, taking into consideration the fact that the extension applied for will not be automatic, the respondent was also required to submit an application for voluntary retirement or reversion to the civil parent department. This option was granted, even according to the respondent, by reason of the extension in retirement age granted by the Central Government for two years, i.e., from 58 to 60 years, evidenced by Exhibit P8. Hence, the situation was that any employee on deputation from a civil department, serving in the Army, was, by virtue of extension of retirement age, required to submit an application for such extension of deputation, in this case in the APS. Since the extension was not automatic, they were also given an option to either retire voluntarily from service or revert back to the parent department, so as to enjoy the benefit of the extension of the retirement age for the extended two years. 4. Since the extension was not automatic, they were also given an option to either retire voluntarily from service or revert back to the parent department, so as to enjoy the benefit of the extension of the retirement age for the extended two years. 4. The respondent would state, in the writ petition, that he submitted an application for extension of service as also for voluntary retirement; but had withdrawn the request for voluntary retirement, since he did not visualize any impediment in the grant of extension of service. But, however, he was issued with Exhibit P10 order dated 07.10.1999 approving relinquishment of Commission by the respondent and repatriation to the Department of Posts. The respondent was, thus, ordered to relinquish his Commission by 30.04.2000, since the same is necessary before repatriation. The respondent would contend that Army Instruction 29/85 relied on in Exhibit P10 is not applicable to him and what is applicable to him is Exhibit P12, being Army Instruction No.107 of 1953. The representation of the respondent against Exhibit P10 was answered by the Department by Exhibit P13. Exhibit P13 specifically pointed out that on the Government of India extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, there is no automatic entitlement for personnel deputed to APS to serve up to 60 years. It was also pointed out that any personnel so desirous of availing such benefits of the increased age of superannuation are at liberty to revert back to the Department of Posts. In the circumstances, the respondent having applied for voluntary retirement and the extension in APS having not been granted, it was informed that his request for voluntary retirement direct from APS without reversion to civil duties is under process. Pursuant to Exhibit P13, Exhibit P14 was also issued, approving the relinquishment of Temporary Commission and also simultaneous retirement from the Department of Posts in the forenoon on 01.05.2000. Exhibit P14 was dated 10.04.2000 and pursuant to the same, Exhibit P15 Movement Order was also issued directing the respondent to proceed to the office of the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. The respondent challenged the order directing relinquishment of Commission in a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition was numbered as C.W.P.7369 of 2000. 5. The respondent challenged the order directing relinquishment of Commission in a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition was numbered as C.W.P.7369 of 2000. When it came up on 11.07.2000, it was submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the petitioner will be deemed to have retired in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel with effect from 30.04.2000 and that the order regarding relinquishment of Commission would stand withdrawn. It was also recorded that the petitioner, respondent herein, shall get the retiral benefits as admissible under the rules and the further submission of the counsel for the official respondents that it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to report to his parent employer was also recorded. The said offer was accepted by the respondent herein and Exhibit P16 order dated 11.07.2000 was passed. Subsequently, the official respondents moved a review application, by which the Movement Order (Exhibit P15 herein) was also treated as withdrawn. The same was permitted by Exhibit P17 order dated 02.03.2001. In effect, the respondent was not required to report to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle and he was deemed to have retired from the APS, but subject to his retrial benefits being granted as per rules applicable to him. 6. The issue having thus been settled, the respondent had again moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh with another writ petition (C.W.P.No.12467 of 2000) for sanctioning the retiral benefits which was not done after a considerable period. Obviously this writ petition was moved when the other writ was pending since the earlier writ was withdrawn only on 4.3.2001. In the second writ petition, an interim order was passed on 26.05.2003 (Exhibit P18) directing release of the gratuity amounts. In the very same order, the submission of the counsel for the official respondents that they have no objection in granting retiral benefits from the Postal Department was recorded, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties. Again when the writ petition came up before Court, it was submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the Pension Payment Order was ready and certain formalities are yet to be completed by the petitioner (respondent herein). Again when the writ petition came up before Court, it was submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the Pension Payment Order was ready and certain formalities are yet to be completed by the petitioner (respondent herein). The petitioner was, hence, directed to comply with the said formality and there was a consequent direction to release pension within six weeks of the receipt of the proforma from the petitioner. Again it was made clear that the release of pension shall be subject to the final decision in the writ petition. The Pension Payment Order, even according to the respondent, was issued by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Nagpur addressed to the Deputy Director of Accounts (Postal), Trivandrum (Kerala Circle) by Exhibit P20 dated 13.08.2003. The recipient of the said Pension Payment Order had also communicated the same to the Post Master, Ernakulam (Vyttila) by Exhibit P21. The Post Master, Vyttila in turn communicated the same to the respondent herein by Exhibit P22 dated 22.1.2004. Subsequent to this, the respondent herein withdrew the writ petition filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, reserving the liberty to file a fresh petition if the representation is decided against him. the order permitting the withdrawal was dated 18.11.2005 (Exhibit P23). 7. The respondent, after detailing the above facts in the writ petition along with documents, produced as Exhibit P24, a request made by him on 7.8.2000 for constituting a Medical Board for sanctioning the retiral benefits and produced Exhibits P25 to P28 evidencing grant of disability pension at the rate of Rs.1560/- per month for 60% disability from his date of retirement, i.e. 01.05.2000. In the meanwhile, the respondent had made another representation by Exhibit P29 dated 10.02.2006 for nonpayment of pension and commutation of pension even after six years of his retirement. The official respondents then replied by Exhibit P30 dated 03.03.2006, pointing out that there was absolutely no delay on their part and the respondent had, in fact, refused to collect the pension from the Post Master, Vyttila as requested by the said officer by Exhibit P22. The respondent, on the basis of his grant of disability pension, contends that pension on retirement from Armed Services comprises of two elements, being the 'service element' and 'disability element' and the respondent having been granted the disability pension, is also entitled to the service pension. The respondent, on the basis of his grant of disability pension, contends that pension on retirement from Armed Services comprises of two elements, being the 'service element' and 'disability element' and the respondent having been granted the disability pension, is also entitled to the service pension. In support of his contention, the respondent has also produced Exhibits P33 and P34 representations, which were answered by Exhibit P35. In Exhibit P35, it was reiterated that the service pension has already been sanctioned to the respondent by the Posts and Telegraphs Department and there is no entitlement for service element from Army. The respondent then again by Exhibit P36 represented that he has not availed of the pension from Postal Department and hence he may be granted the same by the competent authority, viz., the Principal Controller, Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad. 8. The appellants in their review application before the learned Single Judge as also in the appeal before us contended that Army Instruction No.29 of 1985, Annexure-1, superseded the orders contained in AI 107/53 and AI 295/59 with respect to the conditions applicable to the Temporary Commissions granted in the APS of the regular Army. As per Annexure-1 (Exhibit P11), the pension for officers holding such Temporary Commissions in the APS would be governed by civil rules (para 6(a)of Annexure 'A' to Army Instruction 29/85). The appellants also contended that though the respondent was granted a Temporary Commission and the period was extended from time to time with equivalent ranks being conferred; he had been holding the lien in the Kerala Circle of Department of Posts and at the time of his retirement, he was holding the lien in the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. The lien was being maintained without severance. The respondent's monthly pay and allowances were also authorised by the APS Accounts Section, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Nagpur and he was taking payment of salary from the Field Post Offices whereas Army Officers' salary is authorised by CDA (O), Pune and credited in the officers' accounts maintained with Banks. The recoveries of GPF subscription and CGEGIS were made from the respondent's pay, which are not applicable to Army Officers, but only to Central Government Officers under the Central Civil Services. The recoveries of GPF subscription and CGEGIS were made from the respondent's pay, which are not applicable to Army Officers, but only to Central Government Officers under the Central Civil Services. It was also maintained by the appellants that the respondent had applied for various advances, being privileges of his service in the civil department, from his parent Department of Posts. 9. It was on this factual matrix that the writ petition was allowed and the review petition filed by the official respondents was also dismissed. The writ petition was allowed and the review petition was dismissed, as noticed above, only by relying on Exhibit P16 judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Hence, the issue primarily revolves on what interpretation is to be given to Exhibit P16 judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Before dealing with the same, it is also necessary to put the facts in its proper perspective and also in the proper chronological order. 10. Undisputedly the respondent was appointed as a Warrant Officer on the establishment of the regular Army, from 21.9.1965. It cannot be interpreted as anything but a deputation, however, with rank benefits, though the respondent would contend that his deputation was even before the formation of the APS Corps. It is to be noticed that the formation of APS was with effect from 1.3.1972 and the same was by Army Instruction Nos.1/S/71 dated 04.03.1971, produced as Exhibit P6 in the writ petition. Exhibit P1 appointment order is dated 10.6.1971, which is after Exhibit P6. The reference to regular Army in Exhibit P1 is only with respect to the obligation of the appointee to observe the directions from his superior officers according to the rules, regulations and orders for the governance of the Regular Army. Exhibits P2 and P3 obviously are also after the creation of APS Corps. Exhibit P6, which deals with the formation of the Corps, deals with two categories of personnel in two different cadres one deemed as a 'regular cadre' and the other as a 'non-regular cadre'; by paragraph 4, which is extracted hereunder:- "COMPOSITION: 4. Exhibits P2 and P3 obviously are also after the creation of APS Corps. Exhibit P6, which deals with the formation of the Corps, deals with two categories of personnel in two different cadres one deemed as a 'regular cadre' and the other as a 'non-regular cadre'; by paragraph 4, which is extracted hereunder:- "COMPOSITION: 4. The Army Postal Service Corps will comprise of:- (a) a regular cadre of officers, junior commissioned officers and other ranks to the extent of 25 per cent of the authorised establishment of the Corps; and (b) a non-regular cadre of officers, junior commissioned officer and other ranks on deputation from the Posts and Telegraphs Department to the extent of 75 per cent of the authorised establishment of the Corps". The respondent, without any doubt, belongs to the non-regular cadre enumerated in paragraph 4(b). It is also pertinent that Exhibit P4 Gazette Notification refers to grant of "Temporary Commission". The identifying number assigned to the respondent being TC-31291, remains as such throughout his promotions as evidenced by Exhibits P4, P5 and P7 till his retirement evidenced by Exhibits P10, P13 and P14. Hence, the respondent evidently was granted a Temporary Commission, being in the non-regular cadre of Junior Commissioned Officers on deputation from the Posts and Telegraphs Department, who occupied 75% of the authorised establishment of the Corps as per Exhibit P6. The reliance placed on Exhibit P12 Army Instruction No.107 of 1953 is also irrelevant in view of subsequent instructions regarding the Temporary Commissions in APS. In any event, Exhibit P12 Army Instruction No.107 of 1953 also speaks of Temporary commissions for a period of one year and for so long thereafter as a personnel's services may be required in the APS. There is nothing sacrosanct in Exhibit P12 which cannot be amended by subsequent instructions. In fact, Army Instruction No.29 of 1985 (Exhibit P11) shows the equation of posts and the ranks to which an officer in a civil post will be appointed in the APS. It is also pertinent that by paragraph 6 of Annexure 'A' to Army Instruction No.29 of 1985 under the heading "Pension", the service pension of such officers are stated to be governed by the civil rules. 11. It is in this context that Exhibit P16 has to be interpreted. It is also pertinent that by paragraph 6 of Annexure 'A' to Army Instruction No.29 of 1985 under the heading "Pension", the service pension of such officers are stated to be governed by the civil rules. 11. It is in this context that Exhibit P16 has to be interpreted. In Exhibit P16, the concession made by the official respondents that the relinquishment of Commission will be withdrawn was recorded. We are unable to understand from the materials on record as to what it entails. An examination of what is the consequence of relinquishment of Commission or what such Commission entitles an officer to; on retirement, are not questions raised in the writ petition or the appeal. However, it is clear that the Temporary Commission and the rank was functional and was conferred only for the period in which the deputation continued. Any person reverted to the parent department on his own volition or otherwise cannot be permitted to continue the Commission. Hence, as is evident from Exhibits P10 and P14, the withdrawal/ relinquishment of Commission was only to facilitate repatriation to the parent department. However, Exhibit P9 permitted voluntary retirement from APS itself. Hence, the withdrawal of Commission as also a Movement Order was unnecessary and that was the purport of the undertaking of the official respondents in Exhibits P16 and P17. 12. The respondent also cannot have a claim that the relinquishment of Commission entitles him to Army Pension on a reading of the entire order Exhibit P16. In Exhibit P16 while observing that "the petitioner (respondent herein) shall get the retiral benefits as admissible under the rules", the submission of the learned counsel for the official respondents that "so far as the direction to the petitioner (respondent herein) to report to his parent employer is concerned, it is for him to take appropriate steps" was also recorded. This can only mean that the official respondents having retired the respondent from APS, the Army had complied with its obligation and it was for the respondent to take steps to avail of his retiral benefits from his parent department as admissible under the relevant applicable rules. The respondent agreed to the said course of action by Exhibit P16. According to us, Exhibit P16 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Army had conceded to grant him pension recognizing him to be one in the Regular Cadre of the Army. 13. The respondent agreed to the said course of action by Exhibit P16. According to us, Exhibit P16 cannot be interpreted to mean that the Army had conceded to grant him pension recognizing him to be one in the Regular Cadre of the Army. 13. Further, for the grant of gratuity as also the retrial benefits, the respondent had again approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by another writ petition, in which Exhibits P18 and P19 interim orders were passed. Both the said orders show that the concerned High Court had directed the Postal authorities to disburse the amount by way of gratuity and retiral benefits, but however reserving the right of the petitioner/respondent herein to agitate the issue as to whether the benefits ought to be granted by the Army or the Postal Department. Exhibits P18 and P19 were respectively dated 26.05.2003 and 16.12.2003. Exhibit P20, Pension Payment Order, was dated 13.08.2003 and the same was communicated to the concerned Post Master by Exhibit P21 dated 13.01.2004. By Exhibit P22 dated 22.01.2004, the Sub Post Master, Vyttila informed the respondent about the receipt of the Pension Payment Order and requested the respondent to take payment. It was after this that the respondent withdrew C.W.P.No.12467 of 2000, evidenced by Exhibit P23 dated 18.11.2005. The withdrawal of the writ petition, according to us, is a 'fait accompli'. The liberty reserved cannot enure to the unlimited benefit of the respondent; facilitating re-agitation of issues already settled, at any time. 14. The delay projected by the respondent is more of his making. The respondent has been continuously demanding a pension which he is not entitled to and refusing to take payment of the pension he is eligible to. Exhibit P30 and P35 communications to the respondent specifically countered the grievance of delay raised by the respondent. The respondent's retirement having been settled by Exhibit P14 dated 10.04.2000 and the regular pension due to the respondent from the Postal Department having been sanctioned and made ready for disbursal by Exhibit P22 dated 22.01.2004, the respondent would again make a representation on 06.09.2007 by Exhibit P36 to pave the way for a fresh litigation before this Court by the instant writ petition. In this context it is also to be noticed that the offer of the official respondents as evidenced by Exhibit P16 was accepted by the respondent herein as early as in the year 2000. The subsequent writ petition filed against the delay in disbursal of gratuity and retiral benefits was withdrawn subsequent to the sanction of all the benefits sought for. The respondent can only be deemed to be raking up a closed issue and Exhibit P36 representation is akin to flogging a dead horse. 15. The grant of disability pension does not in any manner oblige the Army to grant service element of the pension, especially when the respondent is in the non-regular cadre as stipulated in Exhibit P6 and the service element of pension as per Exhibit P11 Army Instruction will be governed by civil rules. The appellants have also stated that the grant of disability pension has been made under Army Instruction 64/1976 as amended from time to time for the medical disability suffered by the applicant attributable to military service during his service in APS. The grant of disability pension cannot lead to a conclusion that the respondent has to be granted the service element of the pension also by the Army especially when he maintains a lien in the parent Department. Disability obviously is due to service in the Army and the civil department cannot be mulcted with the said liability. 16. It is admitted that as per Exhibit P9, option for extension of service or voluntary retirement/reversion to the civil parent department, was exercised by the respondent. The contention of the respondent is that he applied for extension of service in the APS and in the alternative for voluntary retirement. However, it is urged that the application for voluntary retirement was subsequently withdrawn, since the respondent found no reason why his term in the APS should not be extended. In addition to the fact that Exhibit P9 specifically makes it clear that the extension of service is not automatic, from the records of the case it is very evident that the facts are otherwise. Exhibit P9 communication calling for option was dated 11.06.1999. The application for voluntary retirement from service was made on 30.06.1999, evidenced by Annexure A5(B) produced on behalf of the 5th and 6th appellants along with their affidavit dated 23.07.2011. Exhibit P9 communication calling for option was dated 11.06.1999. The application for voluntary retirement from service was made on 30.06.1999, evidenced by Annexure A5(B) produced on behalf of the 5th and 6th appellants along with their affidavit dated 23.07.2011. The sanction for repatriation of the respondent was also granted by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts by Annexure A5(A) dated 04.10.1999. The relinquishment of the Commission granted to the respondent was effected by Exhibit P10 dated 07.10.1999, wherein the sanction of the Department of Posts dated 04.10.1999 was specifically quoted. Subsequently, by Exhibit P13 dated 28.10.1999, the respondent's claim for extension of service was declined and it was specifically pointed out that the application for his voluntary retirement was being processed. The entire exercise ended with Exhibit P14 dated 10.04.2000 by which the respondent was voluntarily retired from the Department of Posts, effective on 01.05.2000. Even according to the respondent, he had applied for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement only by Annexure R1(d) dated 28.04.2000. It is evident that the order confirming his voluntary retirement dated 10.04.2000 was issued even before the respondent had sought for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement. The dates noticed above would clearly show that the withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement was only an afterthought and was made after the order of voluntary retirement. It is also pertinent that the application for voluntary retirement as also letter for withdrawing the said application were all made by the respondent to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram belying his own contention that he was in fact an Army Personnel. 17. To resolve the issue finally a peep into the law applicable is also required. As was noticed earlier, there cannot be any dispute that the Commission granted to the respondent was a 'Temporary Commission' as evidenced from the various documents roduced by the respondent regarding his appointment and continuance of service as also the Identity Card issued on his retirement bearing his service particulars produced as Annexure R1 (h). In all the said documents, the personal identifying number of the respondent is shown as 'TC-31291'. "T.C." standing for "Temporary Commission". The respondent's contention that he has to be treated as retired from the Army if accepted, then his service as also pension would be controlled by the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. In all the said documents, the personal identifying number of the respondent is shown as 'TC-31291'. "T.C." standing for "Temporary Commission". The respondent's contention that he has to be treated as retired from the Army if accepted, then his service as also pension would be controlled by the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. The Army Act, by Section 2, provides for the persons who are subject to the Act. Section 2(a) and 2(i) are relevant and are extracted below:- "2. Persons subject to this Act.- (1) The following persons shall be subject to this Act wherever they may be, namely: (a) officers, junior commissioned officers and warrant officers of the regular Army; xxx xxx xxx (i) persons not otherwise subject to military law who, on active service, in camp, on the march or at any frontier post specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf, are employed by, or are in the service of, or are followers of, or accompany any portion of, the regular Army". Section 3 (xviii) defines "officer" as a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as an officer in the regular Army and Section 3 (xxi) defines "regular Army" as meaning all such persons who are liable to render military service continuously for a term. Section 6 makes special provision as to rank; by notification of the Central Government. S.R.O.325 of 1975 is one such notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Army Act, which equalizes posts in the Central Government on the basis of monthly basic pay to the category of officers/JCOs/Non-commissioned Officers in the Army. The relative rank of Civil Officers has been further reiterated in S.R.O.No.335 of 1975. What is to be inferred from the above provisions, applied to the facts of the instant case, is that the respondent is not a person who has been granted a Permanent Commission in the Army, but is a person who is not otherwise subject to Military Law, but subject to the provisions of the Army Act as provided in Section 2(i) by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government drawing power from the special provision in Section 6 of the Army Act. Hence, though not ordinarily subjected to Army Act, in the nature of the deputation to the regular Army and in the interest of discipline and security, such Civil Officers who are deemed to be officers in the regular Army are subject to the provisions of the Army Act when in service. However, that does not for a moment detract from the position that such officer has the option to revert back to the civil department where he maintains a lien and his service benefits including retiral benefits flow from the service wherein he maintains a lien. 18. For this, we draw more support from the provisions of the Army Rules, 1954 enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 191 of the Army Act, 1950. Rule 2(d-iii) defines "reckonable commissioned service" as follows:- "2(d-iii) "reckonable commissioned service" means service from the date of permanent commission, or the date of seniority for promotion fixed on grant of that commission including any ante-date for seniority granted under the rules in force on grant of commission: PROVIDED THAT periods of service forfeited by sentence of Court-martial by summary award under the Act and periods of absence without leave, shall be excluded but periods during which furlough rates of pay are drawn and periods of capacity on prisoners of war rates of pay shall be included". The respondent, who has been serving in the regular Army on a Temporary Commission does not have any reckonable commissioned service as is defined under the Rules. Rule 16-A substituted by S.R.O.17-E dated 06.12.1993 regarding retirement of officers specifies the age at which an officer holding a particular rank superannuates. Unlike in regular civil service, the age of superannuation is not similar in the various ranks in the Army. Separate age of superannuation is provided for each rank and that too for different Corps. We are basically concerned with the Army Service Corps and a Commissioned Officer up to and including the rank of Colonel retires at the age of 52, a Brigadier retires at the age of 54, a Major General and a Lieutenant General respectively at the age of 56 and 58. The respondent has continued as a Lieutenant Colonel up to the age of 58 years. The respondent has continued as a Lieutenant Colonel up to the age of 58 years. In our opinion, this alone amply demonstrates the rank conferred on the respondent on the strength of the Temporary Commission is only based on a conferment of relative equivalent rank to civil officials serving in the regular Army and that does not give such officer any claim to be treated, in the matter of pension, as equivalent to a Commissioned Officer retiring from his Commission on the attainment of age of superannuation as provided under the Army Rules, 1954. The Pension Regulations for the Army also is applicable only to permanent Regular Commissioned Officers and requires qualifying commissioned service being service as a permanent regular Commissioned Officer. Obviously, the respondent does not come within any of the statutory requirements to successfully raise a claim for pension under the Army Act, Army Rules and the Pension Regulations for the Army. 19. In the circumstances explained above on the basis of the relevant law, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot claim the service element of the pension payable to the respondent deeming the same to be retirement from Army from the post of Lieutenant Colonel and the respondent is not entitled to the commutation value of pension as per the Army Pension Regulations. The respondent on his approaching the High Court of Punjab & Haryana with the second writ petition, had obtained an order dated 26.05.2003 (Exhibit P18), by which the retiral benefits from the Postal Department was directed to be paid. Subsequently, on the submission of the counsel for the official respondents, as is evident from Exhibit P19, it was directed that the official respondents would forward the necessary documents to the petitioner (respondent herein) and that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) would send it back to the competent authority duly filled in. In the Writ Appeal it has been specifically stated that though in compliance to the interim direction necessary forms were supplied to the respondent, the same has not been returned. The commutation of pension also has not been applied for by the respondent as prescribed in CCA (Pension) Rules. The further prayer of the respondent in the writ petition for interest on the arrears of pension, dearness relief, etc. The commutation of pension also has not been applied for by the respondent as prescribed in CCA (Pension) Rules. The further prayer of the respondent in the writ petition for interest on the arrears of pension, dearness relief, etc. hence cannot be entertained, since the respondent had refused to take payment of the pension sanctioned by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and communicated to him by Exhibit P22. The respondent, in this writ petition, has also prayed for statutory interest on the GPF amount, gratuity and leave encashment. Even according to the respondent, the GPF amount was received by him on 12.10.2000 and the claim of interest now made is grossly belated. Though gratuity was directed to be paid by Exhibit P18 order, it is not clear as to when the payment was made and in any event, Exhibit P18 being passed on 26.5.2003, the said prayer also cannot be considered at this stage. Similarly there are no details available as to the leave encashment and no interest can now be claimed for the reason of gross delay in making the claim. 20. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Consequently, the order in the review petition also is of no avail. The petition filed for initiating contempt, in the light of the dismissal of the writ petition, is hereby closed.