Sharma, J;— This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3838/2008. The writ petition was filed by the respondent in this appeal with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to : a) Admit this petition, b) Issue notice to the respondents c) Call for the records d) Writ, order / direction in the nature of Certiorari against the order of discharge dated 30.9.2006 whereby the petitioner was discharged from service being placed under Low Medical Category (Permanent) w.e.f. 09.02.2006 (annexed and marked as Annexure P-8 to the petition) and accordingly the said order of discharge may be quashed. e) Issue writ, order / direction in the nature of Mandamus which commands to the Respondents to release salary and other consequently benefits of the Petitioner for two years of extended service period, i.e., w.e.f. 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008. f) Issue writ, order / direction in the nature of Mandamus whereby the Respondents may be commanded to compensate the Petitioner reasonably and suitably (upto the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- in total as mentioned in detail in sub Paras (a) to (d) of Para 4 (ii) against the losses which the Petitioner has suffered due to loss of his salaries which would have been paid for further period of two years and also on account of loss of opportunities of his promotions to next higher rank posts if the Petitioner would have continued in the service of the Respondents ; AND Any other and / or further order (s), direction (s) which this Hon’ble Court under the actual facts and circumstances of the matter may deem just, fit and proper, may kindly pass in favour of petitioner and against the respondents for safeguarding and protecting the interest of the petitioner and also to render complete justice to him.” 2. On perusal of the writ petition coupled with the above prayer, it is seen that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of discharge upon medical categorisation as P2 (Permanent) which incidentally was also the date of superannuation from service. On perusal of the writ petition coupled with the above prayer, it is seen that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of discharge upon medical categorisation as P2 (Permanent) which incidentally was also the date of superannuation from service. Such discharge of the petitioner on medical ground coupled with his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation, has entitled the petitioner to receive normal pension as well as disability pension, a fact which the respondent, who has appeared in person, himself has admitted. 3. The respondent was enrolled in the Army way back in 1978 and to be precise on 1.10.1978. He was promoted to the rank of Subedar on 1.11.2004 and he retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2006. He was conferred with the honorary Subedar Major rank on his retirement on 01.10.2006. From the date of his initial appointment to that of the date of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, he had completed 28 years of normal service tenure. 4. When the petitioner was not given the extension / enhancement of service tenure for 2 (two) years after his normal date of superannuation, he had agitated his grievance, inasmuch as, according to him but for the discharge on the ground of Medical Disability, he would have earned the enhancement / extension of 2 (two) years of service. It was on that count, the respondent put to challenge the order of discharge. However, as noted above, irrespective of the order of discharge on medical ground on 30.9.2006, the respondent on the same very date had attained the age of superannuation having completed 28 years of service. 5. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Lt. Col. K.M. Rai, Law Officer of the Department, submits that the learned Single Judge could not have issued direction for payment of pension to the petitioner as admissible to an Officer in the rank of Subedar Major, inasmuch as, the said rank of Subedar Major was conferred on the respondent after his superannuation on 30.9.2006 and thus, the respondent had no occasion to shoulder his responsibility in the said rank of Subedar Major. 6. 6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, what is seen is that their basic grievance is in respect of the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay pension to the writ petition /respondent as admissible in the rank of Subedar Major. The fact of the matter is that the respondent retired from service on completion of 28 years of service w.e.f. 30.9.2006, irrespective of the order of discharge with effect from the same date on medical ground. As noted above, the same has entitled the petitioner to receive both the normal pension as well as Disability Pension. 7. The respondent Mr. Pathania appearing in person, has submitted that he being a victim of the circumstances, appropriate direction be issued to the appellants to give him the benefits of 2 (two) years of extended service from 30.9.2006. However, the fact of the matter is that the learned Single Judge has rejected the said prayer with the following observation :- “Despite the discharge of the petitioner on the ground of medical unfitness as illegal I am not persuaded to accept the prayer of the petitioner for giving consequential benefits of 2 (two) years extension. The documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the affidavit of the respondents show that the petitioner was at-least suffering from various kinds physical and mental ailments and the petitioner was referred to medical Boards on regular basis for his physical assessment and categorisation. At the same time, the petitioner was discharged exactly on and from the date of his completing 28 years of service tenure. As per Regulation 163, the normal tenure of service for an Officer in the rank of Subedar is 28 years or 58 years of age, whichever is earlier and in this case, the petitioner has completed 28 years of service.” 8. According to the respondent, who was the writ petitioner, because of the findings recorded in the impugned judgement and order, more particularly, the order of discharge having been set aside by the learned Single Judge, he is entitled to get the benefit of extended period of service, which is two years. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge (Paragraph 9) is not under challenge as no appeal has been preferred by the respondent, as submitted by Mr. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge (Paragraph 9) is not under challenge as no appeal has been preferred by the respondent, as submitted by Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel representing the appellants, the respondent having been found to be in Low Medical Category (P2 Permanent) by the duly constituted Medical Board after assessing his fitness on different occasions, there is no question of granting the benefit of 2 (two) years of extended service to the respondent. He also submits that the decision on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, namely, Union of India Vs. Rajpal Singh reported in (2009) 1 SCC 216 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submits that unlike the case of discharge from service midway on medical ground, in the instant case, the petitioner having been superannuated on the normal date of superannuation, the matter was not required to be placed before the Board as indicated in the said decision. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 3557 (Om Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors). 9. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that since the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service at the age of superannuation on completion of 28 years of service in the rank of Subedar, he is not entitled to get pension in the rank of Subedar Major, which was conferred on him honorary after his retirement on 30.6.2006 and to be precise on 1.10.2006. 10. As regards the order of discharge dated 30.9.2006 on medical ground, since the same was preceded by examination of the case of the petitioner by a duly constituted Medical Board, which assessed the fitness under the relevant factors, which incidentally was on the same date of retirement of the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 28 years of service, we are of the considered opinion that the same will hold the field and consequently, the respondents will continue to get his normal pension as well as the Disability Pension, presently being received by him, with time to time revision thereof. 11. Writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, without however, any order as to costs. _____________