JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "25(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the letter dated 11.9.2007 of the respondent No. 5 as also order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 3.5.2006 bearing No. KAS/132004/1082(3)/K-9 (which was never served upon the present petitioner) withholding the pension of the petitioner for the reasons stated in the memo of petition. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above Special Civil Application to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from withholding the pension of the present petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 3.5.2006 and intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 11.9.2007 of the respondent No. 5 for the reasons stated in the memo of petition. (c) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require. (D) To award the cost of this petition." 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under: 2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the respondent No. 2 on 21st February 1967 as a 'Heavy Vehicle Operator' in the Baroda Regional Office. It appears that he left the country after getting leave for seventy five days sanctioned. The leave was sanctioned for the period between 17th September 1984 and 30th November 1984. However, the writ applicant failed to return and resume his service. The department came to know that the writ applicant had settled himself at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of employment. 2.2 A departmental charge-sheet was issued to the writ applicant on 4th September 1987 for remaining absent unauthorisedly. It appears that the writ applicant returned to India after three years i.e. in the year 1987. 2.3 An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The writ applicant virtually accepted the charge which was levelled against him of unauthorised absence without leave. 2.4 The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated for the misconduct which was virtually accepted. 2.3 An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The writ applicant virtually accepted the charge which was levelled against him of unauthorised absence without leave. 2.4 The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated for the misconduct which was virtually accepted. 2.5 By order dated 30th July 1992, the services of the writ applicant came to be terminated. 2.6 Being dissatisfied, the writ applicant preferred an appeal bearing No. 462 of 1992 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The said appeal was withdrawn on the ground that the writ applicant wanted to prefer a representation before the Director of Agriculture. 2.7 The writ applicant, thereafter, preferred a representation addressed to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10th September 1996 modified the order of penalty by substituting the same from dismissal to compulsory retirement. 2.8 It appears that despite such order being passed, pension was sanctioned on 16th September 1997. It appears that one fine day i.e. almost after a period of about ten years, the authority realized that the writ applicant was not entitled to regular pension as the penalty of compulsory retirement by way of punishment was imposed in the departmental inquiry. According to the authority, at best, the writ applicant would be entitled to the compassionate pension in accordance with the Pension Regulations 2002. 2.9 All of a sudden, the pension was stopped without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant and also without passing an appropriate order in that regard. 2.10 Hence, this writ application. 3. On 24th January 2008, the following order was passed: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension, which was sanctioned in the year 1997, was abruptly stopped by the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 without issuing show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner. Rule. Interim relief in terms of paragraph 25(B). D.S. Permitted." 4. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the decision taken by the authority to stop the pension is erroneous and absolutely arbitrary. According to Mr. Rule. Interim relief in terms of paragraph 25(B). D.S. Permitted." 4. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the decision taken by the authority to stop the pension is erroneous and absolutely arbitrary. According to Mr. Rao, the original order of penalty of dismissal was modified to one of the compulsory retirement and if that be so, then the writ applicant would be entitled to full pension on the basis of the service put in till the date of compulsory retirement. According to Mr. Rao, the order of compulsory retirement from service involves no civil consequences and the government servant does not lose any of the legal rights conferred upon him before retirement. Mr. Rao submits that the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. Mr. Rao invited my attention to Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which provides for the minor penalties and major penalties. According to Mr. Rao, although the compulsory retirement has been shown as one of the major penalties, yet the explanation to Rule 6 makes it very clear that the compulsory retirement of a government servant shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of Rule 6. 5. Mr. Rao, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions: "(1) Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India [ 2012(3) SCC 178 ] (2) B.S. Shiroi v. Sri Veebhadreshwar Education Society [ 2004(13) SCC 619 ] (3) Hussaini v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabd [ 1985(1) SCC 120 ] (4) State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [2001(2) GLH 175] (5) State of Gujarat v. Narendra Kumar V. Parikh [2005(4) GLR 3383] (6) Nawal Singh v. State of U.P. [ 2003(8) SCC 117 ] (7) Union of India v. Collector J.N Sinha [ 1970 (2) SCC 458 ] (8) Darshana R. dave v. State of Gujarat [ 2006(2) GLH 55 ] (9) [2003(0) GLHEL-HC 204115] (10) Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada [ 1992(2) SCC 299 ] (11) R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P. [ 2012 (8) SCC 58 ]" 6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Rao prays that the decision of the authority to stop the pension is erroneous in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondent. He submits that the authority at the relevant point of time committed a serious error in sanctioning full pension in favour of the writ applicant. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the penalty was modified i.e. from dismissal to compulsory retirement. However, the fact remains that the order of compulsory retirement was by way of punishment and not by way of the premature retirement in public interest. If the penalty order of dismissal would have been substituted that one of the premature retirement in public interest, then the writ applicant would have been entitled to receive all the benefits of his earlier service. The learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that the order of compulsory retirement was not in public interest, but keeping in mind the charge of misconduct which was held to be established. 8. According to the learned A.G.P., the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant proceeds on a wrong footing, and therefore, deserves to be outright rejected. The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2: "4. I state that, the petitioner was earlier appointed in Agriculture Department on 11.10.1967 as an Assistant Heavy Vehicle Operator and thereafter, he was promoted to Heavy Vehicle Operator on 12.02.1973. I state that, earlier the petitioner has taken earned leave from 17.09.1984 to 30.11.1984 in all earned leave to 75 days was sanctioned. I state that, as the petitioner was a government employee he was required to be obtained N.O.C. Certificate before visiting foreign country but in the present case the petitioner had not obtained an N.O.C. Certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 30.07.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed appeal before the learned Tribunal which was withdrawn and thereafter, on 11.11.1994 a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 11.09.1996 the order of dismissal was converted into the order of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 30.07.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed appeal before the learned Tribunal which was withdrawn and thereafter, on 11.11.1994 a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 11.09.1996 the order of dismissal was converted into the order of compulsory retirement. This order was passed taking into consideration Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules and Rule 274 and therefore, as per the gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002 more particularly Rule 301 and 304 and Rule 77, 78 and 79 the case of the petitioner only can be considered for granting the compassionate pension (Rahemiyat) and the petitioner's case cannot be considered for regular pension. I state that, if the employee is ordered to be compulsory retirement on the ground of misconduct and in case of insolvency in that case the employee will not be entitled for regular pension and the government can consider the employee only of the compassionate pension. 5. I state that, the petitioner's punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement by order dated 11.09.1996. I state that, thereafter, the petitioner's case for pension was considered and D.P.P. Office by letter dated 05.09.1997 was pleased to sanction the regular pension. In fact, the petitioner was not entitled to the regular pension. I state that, the petitioner is not entitled to the regular pension therefore, the pension was required to be stopped. I state that, the contention raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was not given the difference of salary for the period of 04.08.1992 to 10.09.1996, I state that, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 04.08.1992 and the punishment was modified by order dated 11.09.1996 to the effect of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the payment of difference of salary as prayed for. I state that, the petitioner was replied in this regard by letter dated 05.05.1998. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to the payment of difference of salary. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. 6. I state that, the petitioner was replied in this regard by letter dated 05.05.1998. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to the payment of difference of salary. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. 6. I state that, as it was noticed that the petitioner is not entitled to the regular pension and therefore, the Director, Agriculture Department was pleased to address a communication on 24.08.1987 to the District Treasury Office to stop the payment of regular pension of the petitioner. I state that, the petitioner is not entitled to the pension as per Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 274, 301 and 304 and Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 77, 78 and 79. I state that, the petitioner had left India without taking prior permission and without obtaining an N.O.C. Certificate and considering these things the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, the case of the petitioner was considered sympathetically in appeal and the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement and therefore, the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired on the basis of misconduct and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the regular pension. 7. I state that, as stated hereinabove the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct and the same was modified by the Appellate Authority and the dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement and as per Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 274, if an employee is ordered to be retired compulsorily on the ground of insolvency, inefficiency and misconduct in that case the employee will not be entitled to the regular pension and as stated hereinabove that even though the petitioner was not entitled for the regular pension therefore, the regular pension of the petitioner was ordered to be stopped. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed." 9. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Assistant Government Pleader prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same may be rejected. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to receive regular pension under the Pension Rules 2002. 11. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to receive regular pension under the Pension Rules 2002. 11. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no order as such in writing stopping the regular pension, I was of the view that the authority should be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant and thereafter pass an appropriate order in writing as regards the claim of the writ applicant to receive regular pension. In such circumstances, I gave an option to Mr. Rao, the learned counsel, whether he would invite such direction or I should on my own decide the legal issue and put an end to the controversy. Mr. Rao submitted that instead of asking the authority to hear the writ applicant and pass an order in writing, this Court may consider the legal issue and put an end to the matter. Therefore, I have decided to answer the neat question of law raised by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant. 12. I take notice of the order passed by the Director Agriculture, State of Gujarat, dated 10th September 1996. The relevant part of the order, the free English translation of the same, reads as under: "Before taking decision on his aforesaid appeal, the Department had called upon him to make submissions in person vide letter of reference-5 dated 26-5-1995. Upon examining the entire record of the inquiry against him and the fact that he had admitted the charges levelled against him suggests that he had gone abroad willfully without the 'No Objection Certificate'. Thus he had already admitted the charge. Therefore, as per Rule 6(7) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the order of penalty of dismissal from service of Mr. Pathan passed in such way that he will not disqualify for future government service is found to be just and proper. Thus he had already admitted the charge. Therefore, as per Rule 6(7) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the order of penalty of dismissal from service of Mr. Pathan passed in such way that he will not disqualify for future government service is found to be just and proper. However, upon consideration of his aforesaid appeal, personal submissions and his request for imposing lesser penalty than the penalty which was already imposed, the undersigned has thought fit to take the following decision sympathetically on his appeal and accordingly I pass the following order: "The lesser penalty of 'compulsory retirement' is imposed upon Shri Pathan substituting the penalty of 'dismissal from service' which was already imposed upon him by the Joint Agricultural Director (J.S.) Vadodara and the order of penalty of 'dismissal from service' is revoked." 13. Thus, the order passed by the Director, Agriculture, referred to above, is plain and simple. The only indulgence shown to the writ applicant was that instead of dismissing the writ applicant from service, it thought fit to pass the order of compulsory retirement, but by way of punishment. This should put to an end to the entire controversy. In the order referred to above, at no place it has been stated that the compulsory retirement is in the form of premature retirement in public interest. 14. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules (Discipline & Appeal) rules, 1971 reads as under "6. Nature of Penalties: Without prejudice to the provision of any law for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member of the State, Subordinate or + (Inferior Service) namely, + [Inserted vide GN/GAD/No.GS-77-79/1277-G, dated 18-05-1977] Minor Penalties *+(1) Censure (2) Withholding of increments or promotion. (3) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. Major Penalties (4) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of pay. Major Penalties (4) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of pay. (5) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further direction regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and h is seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service. (6) Compulsory retirement. (7) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government. (8) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government." 15. The explanation to the Rule 6 clarifies that the following will not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the Rule 6. We are concerned with Clause 7 of the explanation, which reads as under: "(7) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions of any law or rules for the time being in force relating to such retirement." 16. The compulsory retirement in Clause 7 of the explanation to Rule 6 should be read as one under Rule 10 of the Pension Rules, 2002. An explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term, but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows that it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision. 17. Swarup in the 'Legislation and Interpretation' very aptly sums up the scope and effect of an Explanation thus: "Sometimes an explanation is appended to stress upon a particular thing which ordinarily would not appear clearly from the provisions of the section. The proper function of an explanation is to make plain or elucidate what is enacted in the substantive provision and not to add or subtract from it. Thus an explanation does not either restrict or extend the enacting part; it does not enlarge or narrow down the scope of the original section that it is supposed to explain.......... The proper function of an explanation is to make plain or elucidate what is enacted in the substantive provision and not to add or subtract from it. Thus an explanation does not either restrict or extend the enacting part; it does not enlarge or narrow down the scope of the original section that it is supposed to explain.......... The Explanation must be interpreted according to its own tenor; that it is meant to explain and not vice versa." 18. In Bihar Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar (1967) 1 SCR 848 : ( AIR 1967 SC 389 ), the Supreme Court observed thus: "The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section. It should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section." 19. The argument of Mr. Rao that the compulsory retirement does not amount to a penalty in view of the explanation to Rule 6 deserves to be outright rejected. The compulsory retirement referred to in the explanation means the compulsory retirement in public interest by way of premature retirement and not by way of punishment. 20. Rules 77, 78 and 79 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 provides for the compassionate pension. The same reads as under: "77. Grant of Compassionate Pension : (1) A Government employee who is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. (2) A Government employee who is removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground of inefficiency, shall, if he be eligible for a superannuation, or retiring pension, be granted such pension. If he is not eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation pension he shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. 78. Grant of Compassionate pension in deserving cases by Government : (1) When a Government employee is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency or is removed or required to retire from Government service on grounds of inefficiency before he is eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation Pension, Government may, if the case is considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a Compassionate pension. (2) A dismissed Government employee is not eligible for Compassionate Pension. 79. (2) A dismissed Government employee is not eligible for Compassionate Pension. 79. Amount of Compassionate Pension to be fixed by Government in each case : The amount of Compassionate Pension granted to a Government employee under rule-78 shall be such as Government may fix in each case: Provided that, (a) When a Government employee is removed from Government service for insolvency, inefficiency or misconduct, it shall not exceed two-thirds of the invalid pension which would have been admissible to him had he retired on a medical certificate; and (b) When a Government employee is required to retire from service for insolvency, inefficiency or misconduct, it shall be at a rate not less than two-thirds of and not more than full invalid pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, had he retired on medical certificate. Note : The pension sanctioned under this rule shall not be reduced below the minimum pension as fixed by the Government." 21. The Rule 77 makes it abundantly clear that a government employee who is removed or requires to retire from government service for the misconduct shall not be granted any pension other than the compassionate pension. 22. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant has mixed up the compulsory retirement by way of penalty with that of one in public interest. 23. The compulsory retirement in the service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, the compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following the procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of the Article 311 of the Constitution. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of the Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, and Rule 10 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with the loss of retiral benefits. (See Shyamlal v. State of U.P. (1955) 1 SCR 26 ; Brijmohansingh Chopra v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 188 ; Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa (1994) Supple 3 SCC 424; BaikunthNath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. (1992) 2 SCC 299 ). More appropriately it is like premature retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retiral benefits. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The object of such compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the government servant but to weed out the worthless who have lost their utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or promoting stagnation. [See: Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) SCC 305 ] 24. The compulsory retirement, which Mr. Rao is referring to, is Rule 10 of the Pension Rules 2002, which reads as under: "10. Age of retirement : (1) Except as provided in this rule, every Government employee, other than a Class IV employee, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. Rao is referring to, is Rule 10 of the Pension Rules 2002, which reads as under: "10. Age of retirement : (1) Except as provided in this rule, every Government employee, other than a Class IV employee, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. The Government employee may be retained in service beyond the age of fifty-eight years only with the previous sanction of the Government in the public interest, the reasons for it shall be recorded in writing. (2) A Government employee in Class IV service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. The Government employee may be retained in service beyond the age of sixty years only with the previous sanction of Government. Explanation : For the purpose of sub-rules (1) and (2), a Government employee whose date of birth is the 1st day of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the same month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be." 25. Mr. Rao has placed reliance on one of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat and another [Civil Appeal Nos. 6116 - 6117 of 2016 decided on 12th July 2016]. In this case, Shri Parekh, a Judicial Officer, was dismissed from service on the charge of having indulged in corrupt practice. In para - 21, the Supreme Court observed as under: "21. That leads us to the issue of the punishment which has been imposed on the Appellant. The Appellant has been dismissed from service. The submission of the Appellant is that having regard to the fact that he has an unblemished record of service, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal would be disproportionate to the misconduct which has been found to be established. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules 1971 enunciates disciplinary penalties. Among them is (i) compulsory retirement; (ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government; (iii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government. The punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct established. Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules 1971 enunciates disciplinary penalties. Among them is (i) compulsory retirement; (ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government; (iii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government. The punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct established. Having due regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been found to be established and the totality of circumstances we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should stand substituted by an order of compulsory retirement. The Appellant has attained the age of superannuation and would be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis." 26. Mr. Rao very vehemently submitted that the Supreme Court in para - 21 has observed that since the punishment of dismissal is being substituted by an order of compulsory retirement, Shri Parekh would be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis. In my view, it is nothing, but a thorough misreading of the judgment of the Honourable the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the charge against Shri Parekh of corrupt practice remained even while substituting the punishment of dismissal by an order of compulsory retirement. The compulsory retirement was by way of punishment. The Supreme Court did not pass an order that Shri Parekh should be retired prematurely in public interest on the premise that he had already attained the age of superannuation. When the Supreme Court says that Shri Parekh would be entitled to his retirement benefits on the basis of the substituted punishment, the same should be understood as the benefits which are otherwise admissible to him in accordance with the rules and regulations. 27. Since the order of punishment was substituted by an order of compulsory retirement, the case of Shri Parekh would also be covered by Rules 77, 78 and 79 of the Pension Rules 2002. 28. All other decisions, on which reliance has been placed, are of no consequence to the writ applicant. They are all on compulsory retirement in public interest and not by way of punishment. The order of compulsory retirement in public interest is passed if the employee concerned is found to be a dead-wood having lost his utility purpose. 29. 28. All other decisions, on which reliance has been placed, are of no consequence to the writ applicant. They are all on compulsory retirement in public interest and not by way of punishment. The order of compulsory retirement in public interest is passed if the employee concerned is found to be a dead-wood having lost his utility purpose. 29. The case in hand is not one of a compulsory retirement in public interest, but the same is by way of punishment. 30. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ applicant is not entitled to receive the regular pension, but is only entitled to the compassionate pension in accordance with the rules referred to above. 31. In the result, this writ application fails and is hereby rejected. However, it is clarified that there shall be no recovery of any excess amount which has been paid to the writ applicant by way of regular pension. The authority concerned shall now consider the grant of the compassionate pension to the writ applicant in accordance with the rules, which have been referred to above. Such order of compassionate pension shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.