Judgment : Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Constable on 8th February, 1978. While he was in service, he was charge-sheeted and departmental proceedings were initiated against him, in which the charges against the petitioner’s husband were proved, namely, that he had consumed liquor while on duty and misbehaved with another constable. On the basis of this finding, an order of dismissal was passed on 11th February, 1988. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband preferred a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner’s husband thereafter approached the Public Service Tribunal and the claim application was also rejected. The petitioner’s husband, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 5264 of 2001 (S/S) and, during its pendency, the petitioner’s husband died. The petitioner applied for substitution, which was allowed and, the writ petition was partly allowed by a judgment dated 2nd April, 2004. The court found that the charges stood proved against the petitioner’s husband but held that the punishment awarded to the petitioner’s husband did not commensurate with the misconduct. The court, accordingly, converted the order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement. The court, accordingly, directed the respondents that the benefits arising from the decision as well as the post retirement benefits, if the petitioner is eligible, be released. Based on the said order, the petitioner applied for post retirement dues, which was rejected by an order dated 11th June, 2004. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned brief holder for the State and having perused the impugned order, the courts find that the claim for the post retirement dues has been rejected on the ground that in view of Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, the petitioner’s husband was not over 50 years of age, and was, consequently, not entitled for any post retirement benefits, since he could not be compulsory retired. 3. The provision of Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules cannot be invoked inasmuch as the said provision applies where the appointing authority may compulsory retire his employee after the employee attains the age of fifty years or, where the government servant wants to voluntarily retire, he may do so, after attaining the age of forty-five years or after completing a qualifying service of twenty years. In the instant case, both the conditions are not applicable, inasmuch as it is an order of the Court. Once the Court substitutes the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, it is deemed that the person is deemed to have been compulsory retired and becomes eligible for benefits accruing from it. The order of the respondents, denying the benefits, arising out of compulsory retirement, was totally erroneous. 4. Take another instance, for example, if the order of punishment of dismissal was substituted by reinstatement, the petitioner’s husband would have completed more than 20 years of service as on date and would have reached 50 years of age and consequently would become eligible under Rule 56 (c). 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant all post retirement benefits to the petitioner, pursuant to the order of compulsory retirement, passed by the Court by its judgment dated 2nd April, 2004. Such post retirement benefits should be released within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.