JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 120 of 2006. The late husband of the present respondent having been directed to retire from service on the ground of invalidation with effect from 01.05.1997, had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ application, i.e. W.P(C) No. 1042 of 2004 claiming invalid pension. The said writ petition was disposed of on 31.12.2004 directing his case to be considered by the present appellants. In compliance of the said order, the husband of the present respondent was allowed retirement gratuity and service gratuity in lieu of pension but no invalid pension was granted as he had not completed 10 years of qualifying service. This order issued on 17.12.2005 was again challenged by the late husband of the present respondent by filing a writ application, i.e. W.P(C) No. 120 of 2006 out of which this writ appeal arises. The above writ application was allowed by the Learned Single Judge and a direction was issued to the appellants to pay invalid pension to the late husband of the present respondent. Admittedly, the late husband of the respondent had not completed 10 years of service by the time he was directed to retire from service on the ground of invalidation. The question for consideration before this Court is as to whether for invalid pension an incumbent is required to complete 10 years of service or not. Relying on Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Ld. Single Judge held that there is no prescribed period for qualifying service under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of invalid pension and accordingly held that the late husband of the present respondent is entitled invalid pension. 2. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 38 and 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and submitted that both Rules have to be read together to find out as to whether the late husband of the present respondent is entitled invalid pension or not. 3. 2. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 38 and 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and submitted that both Rules have to be read together to find out as to whether the late husband of the present respondent is entitled invalid pension or not. 3. It is further submitted that though Rule 38 does not prescribe qualifying service of 10 years for the purpose of invalid pension, the said Rule 49(1) provides that minimum 10 years of qualifying service is required for grant of any kind of pension. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India -vrs- Bashirbhai R. Khiliji reported in (2007) 6 SCC 16 . In the above reported case, a similar question came up for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not independent of Rule 49(1) of the said Rule and both the Rules have to be read together for the purpose of any kind of pension. It was the further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for grant of any kind of pension one has to put in minimum of 10 years of qualifying service. 4. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent faced with the above judgment submitted that, the late husband of the respondent though had not completed ten years of service, he had completed more than nine and half years of service. His retirement from service on ground of invalidation was due to some diseases in the eye which is relatable to service. Therefore, as directed in the above case of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent may be given ex-gratia compensation apart from retirement gratuity and service gratuity. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above reported case, the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments are not sustainable. If Rules 38 is read with Rule 49(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 retirement prior to completion of 10 years minimum service will not entitle the retiring officer to any kind of pension. If Rules 38 is read with Rule 49(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 retirement prior to completion of 10 years minimum service will not entitle the retiring officer to any kind of pension. Admittedly, the late husband of the present respondent had completed more than 9 years of service but had not completed 10 years of service and accordingly, he is not entitled to get pension. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Ld. Single Judge is not sustainable in law. So far as the question of ex-gratia payment is concerned, we find that during pendency of the writ appeal the original respondent expired and he was substituted by his wife. Admittedly also the late husband of the present respondent was left with few months to complete 10 years of minimum qualifying service. Medical report annexed to the writ petition at Annexure-A/5 shows that the late husband of the present respondent was suffering from Chronic Dysphonic Phobic Neurosis which rendered him unfit for continuance in service and such incapacity was not on account of irregularity or intemperate habits. Therefore, if the late husband of the respondents had not attributed anything for such disease, it can be related to service rendered by him. On consideration of the above facts, we find some force in submission of the respondent in regard to payment of ex-gratia. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal and set aside impugned judgment of the Ld. Single Judge and hold that the late husband of the respondent was not entitled invalid pension, but direct that the present respondent be paid ex-gratia of Rs. 1,00,000/- apart from retirement gratuity and service gratuity which her husband was entitled, if not already paid. With the above observation and direction, this writ appeal stands disposed of.