Judgment :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this court, dated 6.9.2010, made in W.P.No.32869 of 2003. The appellant in the present writ appeal was the respondent in the writ petition, in W.P.No.32869 of 2003. 2. The writ petition had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the letter issued by the respondent in Letter No.SCT2/2847/2002/S, dated 30.8.2003, quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to refix the pension and the other retirement benefits, payable to the petitioner, by taking into account the military service rendered by him during the period from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. 3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P.No.32869 of 2003, are as follows: 3.1. The petitioner had joined as a Tally Clerk in the Traffic Department, on 8.10.1968. Prior to the said appointment, he had been working as a Havaldar Clerk in the Electrical Mechanical Engineering Corps (EME), Secundarabad, under the Ministry of Defence, for the period from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. On discharge from the military service on compassionate ground, the petitioner had joined in the respondent Port Trust, under the ex-servicemen quota. He had been given various promotions and he had retired from service, as a Senior Assistant, on his attaining the age of superannuation, on 29.2.1996, in the pay scale of Rs.2425-4760. 3.2. The respondent had been paying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, by taking into consideration the service rendered by him in the Chennai Port Trust for the period, from 8.10.1968 to 29.2.1996, without taking into consideration the military service rendered by him for a period of 6 years, 6 months and 11 days, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. The petitioner had made representations to the respondent Port Trust to take into consideration the military service rendered by the petitioner for calculating his pensionary benefits, as per Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 30.8.2003, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.32869 of 2003, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 30.8.2003, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.32869 of 2003, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Port Trust it had been stated that, with regard to the counting of the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the military, the respondent Port Trust is bound to follow the instructions given by the government, from time to time. By a letter, dated 7.8.2002, the Ministry of Shipping, Ports Wing, had clarified that the military service rendered by the petitioner is non-pensionable and therefore, it cannot be counted for the payment of civil pension. Further, it had been stated by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare that the matter relating to the discharge of a person from military service, at his own request, had been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence had clarified that, in cases of Personnel Below Officer Rank, such a discharge would not be treated as equal to resignation in civil service. However, in the case of the petitioner it had been stated that the military service rendered by him had been certified as non-pensionable service and therefore, he was not eligible for the payment of civil pension. In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner for counting his military service for the period from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967, had not been counted for the payment of the civil pension, to the petitioner, as per the impugned order passed by the respondent Port Trust, dated 30.8.2003. 5. The learned single Judge, in his order, dated 6.9.2010, made in W.P.No.32869 of 2003, had held that the provisions of the Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulations, 1987, would not have the effect of depriving the petitioner the benefits prescribed under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned Judge had further stated that it appears that, after the IV Pay Commission had been implemented certain clarifications had been issued by the government, dated 14.4.1987, regarding the counting of military service for the payment of civil pension. The learned Judge had further stated that it appears that, after the IV Pay Commission had been implemented certain clarifications had been issued by the government, dated 14.4.1987, regarding the counting of military service for the payment of civil pension. The said clarification would make it abundantly clear that the intention of the government was to confer the benefit of IV Pay Commission to the government employees, by way of an option, as it was a beneficial measure sanctioned by the government. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the payment of civil pension for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. Accordingly, the learned single Judge had set aside the impugned letter of the respondent, dated 30.8.2003, and had directed the respondent to take into consideration the military service rendered by the petitioner, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967, for the grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 6. The learned single Judge had further directed that the respondent shall confer the benefit in favour of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, not later than a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Challenging the said order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 6.9.2010, the present writ appeal has been preferred before this Court, by the respondent Port Trust. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had stated, inter alia, that the military service rendered by the petitioner for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967, was non-pensionable service, as clarified by the military authorities concerned. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned single Judge, directing the respondent Port Trust to take into consideration the military service rendered by the petitioner, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. The learned single Judge ought to have seen that as per the clarification issued by the Central Government, with regard to Rule 19 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent should have exercised his option, within one year from the date of re-employment, to get the benefit. However, he had failed to do so. While so, it was not open to the learned single Judge to direct the respondent Port Trust to pay the civil pension to the petitioner taking into account the military service rendered by him for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. 8. However, he had failed to do so. While so, it was not open to the learned single Judge to direct the respondent Port Trust to pay the civil pension to the petitioner taking into account the military service rendered by him for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. 8. From the records available, it is noted that the military authority concerned, by a letter, dated 10.4.2002, had requested the respondent Port Trust to count the military service of the petitioner, rendered for a period of 6 years, 6 six months and 11 days, towards the payment of civil pension. It is also noted from the communication issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Ports Wing, Government of India, dated 7.8.2002, that the Ministry of Defence had clarified that the discharge at own request, in the case of Personnel Below Officer Rank, is not treated as equal to resignation in civil service and hence, the military service in the case of Personnel Below Officer Rank can be counted for civil pension even in the case of discharge at own request. In such circumstances, this Court is not convinced with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent in the present writ appeal is not entitled for the payment of civil pension, taking into account the military service rendered by him for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had not been in a position to show that there is any rule or regulation prohibiting the payment of civil pension, taking into consideration the military service rendered by a Personnel Below Officer Rank. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be countenanced. As such, the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, dated 6.9.2012, made in W.P.No.32869 of 2003. Therefore, the present writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.