JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No.1 herein stood engaged by the petitioners herein as T-Mate. He performed work in the aforesaid capacity from 11.05.1978 to 30.03.1980. On 30.3.1980, during the course of his employment under the petitioners, he suffered a fall from a electric pole, in consequence whereof grave injuries stood entailed upon his person. He stood admitted in the emergency ward at PGI, Chandigarh on 31.03.1980 and on examination, he was found to have suffered complete traumatic paraplegia, D-6 vertebral level. Annexure R-1, appended to T.A. No. 172 of 87, is a certificate of 21.1.1981 issued by the Senior Associate, Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh disclosing the factum of respondent No.1 standing entailed with paraplegia caused by the accident or in sequel to the accident. A recommendation was made therein for grant of 100% compensation to him. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') held in affirmation to the apposite averments constituted by respondent No.1 in his petition of his during the course of his employment under the petitioners suffering a fall from an electric pole whereupon he suffered a grave injury sequelling entailment upon him of 100% disability or his standing encumbered with 100% disability. It was also held by the learned Tribunal that the disability as stood entailed upon respondent No.1 carried a direct nexus with his employment under the petitioners. Precisely, it was held by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned before this Court of the 100% disablement as stood entailed upon respondent No.1 being attributable to his employment under the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have concerted to, by instituting the instant writ petition before this Court reverse the order of the learned Tribunal, comprised in Annexure P-6, whereby the learned Tribunal on considering the apposite material placed before it, directed the petitioners herein to favourably consider the grant of invalid pension to respondent No.1 by relaxing the mandatory condition of 10 years of service as prescribed for its availment in Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Rules”) by exercising powers vested in it under Rule 88 of the Pension Rules, besides a direction was also rendered to the employers/petitioners to pay to the aggrieved/respondent No.1 all the benefits and arrears as if he has put in 10 years of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Necessarily, the petitioners stand aggrieved and are constrained to institute the instant writ petition before this Court for quashing of the orders of the learned Tribunal comprised in Annexure P-6. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have also perused the entire record carefully. 4. It is apt to record herein that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.06.2013 considered the issue whether the employer has authority to retire his employee with retrospective effect and held that the employer cannot retire his employee with retrospective effect. But in the second part of the order, the matter was referred to the Full Bench for determination of the mandate of Rule 38 and Rule 49 of the Pension Rules. This issue was considered by the Full Bench and it was held in para 3 of the order dated 2nd August, 2013 that Rule 38 does not specify the minimum qualifying service but has to be traced while examining Rule 49 of the Pension Rules. The said finding was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Union of India and another versus Bashirbhai R. Khiliji, (2007)6 SCC 16 . It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the aforesaid judgment hereunder:- “9. We are presently concerned with two provisions of the Rules i.e. Rule 38 and Rule 49. Rule 38, as reproduced above, contemplates the invalid pension. The procedure has been mentioned therein i.e. in case an incumbent retires from service on account of bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitated him for the service, then a medical certificate of incapacity shall be given by the authorities concerned and in particular Form 23 the same may be applied before the competent authority. It is true that the qualifying service is not mentioned in Rule 38 but Rule 49 which deals with the amount of pension stipulates that a government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service of ten years is mentioned in Rule 49. Therefore, the minimum qualifying service of ten years is mentioned in Rule 49. The word “qualifying service” has been defined in Rule 3(1)(q) of the Rules which reads as under: “3(1)(q) 'qualifying service' means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these Rules;” (...p 20) 5. While going through the impugned order made by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the learned Tribunal has discussed Rule 88 of the Pension Rules qua power to relax which was neither discussed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court nor by the Full Bench and no findings were returned thereon. 6. In order to determine the question as to whether the learned Tribunal has rightly made the impugned order, it is necessary to examine the provisions of law read with the facts of the case in hand. 7. The learned Tribunal even while noticing the provisions of Rule 38 of the Pension Rules which stands extracted hereinafter mandating therein the grant of invalid pension to a government servant who stand superannuated from service, superannuation whereof arises on account of any bodily or mental infirmity permanently incapacitating him to perform his duties under his employer, yet with the provisions of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules which too stand extracted hereinafter enjoining in clause 2(c) qua exclusion of sub clause (a) and sub clause (b) of clause (2) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules in the wake of the provisions/conditions contemplated therein getting enlivened. However, apparently the conditions contemplated in sub clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (2) to Rule 49 of the Pension Rules cannot stand availed of by respondent No.1 in either computing or quantifying the invalid pension payable to him. For reiteration, his not falling within the parameters of the preconditions envisaged in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (2) to Rule 49 of the Pension Rules for warranting its computation thereunder qua him besides its concomitant availment by him would not exclude him from its availment by him if he satiates the conditions embodied in clause (1) to Rule 49 of the Pension Rules. The reason for so holding stands aroused by the factum of the provisions of the non obstante sub clause (c) of Clause (2) constituted in Rule 49 of the Pension Rules while bespeaking therein qua exclusion with specificity the operation or the applicability of sub clauses (a) and (b) qua respondent No.1 while the department concerned assesses thereunder invalid pension payable to him provisions whereof, for reasons aforestated embedded in respondent No.1 not satiating the conditions spelt out therein for its availment by him hence forestalling its operation qua him, yet when the non obstante sub clause (c) omits to exclude with specificity the applicability or the operation of Clause 1 of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules qua respondent No.1, besides with its carrying a prescription of a government employee standing entitled to pension inconsonance with the Pension Rules only on his completing the mandatorily stipulated period of qualifying service of 10 years. As a sequitur, when the minimum of 10 years of qualifying service mandatorily enjoined to be completed by the employee/respondent No.1 stood not rendered by him under his employer he was aptly disentitled to the benefit of Rule 38 of the Pension Rules. However, the conclusion aforesaid would render the aggrieved/respondent No.1 to despite his standing permanently incapacitated from rendering further service under his employer avail the benefit of invalid pension, especially when for mitigating his hardship, the provisions of Rule 38 and Rule 49 of the Pension Rules are to be imperatively harmoniously read as aptly read by the learned Tribunal. Rule 38 and Rule 49 of the Pension Rules read as under: “38. Invalid Pension: (1) In valid pension may be granted if a Government servant retires from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service. (2)................... (3).................. (4)................. 49. Amount of Pension: (1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. (2)................... (3).................. (4)................. 49. Amount of Pension: (1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service. (2) (a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty percent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensum; (b) In the case of a Government service retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years, but after completing qualifying service of 10 years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pensions hall be less than Rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensum; (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b), the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54.” 8. On an harmonious reading of both the provisions of the Pension Rules, the learned Tribunal proceeded to invoke the provisions encapsulated in Rule 88 of the Pension Rules which stand extracted hereinafter:- “88. Power of relax. Whereby any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner: Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.” The provisions of Rule 88 of the Pension Rules bestow in the competent authority of the department concerned to for reasons recorded in writing dispense with or relax the requirement of any rule. The power vested in the department concerned of the Government to relax the rigour of any rule is a plenary power exercisable at its instance for diluting the rigours of any rule embodied in the Pension Rules especially when the operation of any Rule with its fullest might in working out or computing the quantum of invalid pension to any employee, who during the course of his employment, as is respondent No.1, stood entailed with a 100% disability, rendering him perennially incapacitated to perform his duties under the petitioners whereupon he stood retired from services by them, would encumber an invalid employee with inexorable hardship. Even though, the availment of invalid pension by respondent No.1 stands embodied in Rule 38 of the Pension Rules, yet despite his suffering 100% disability entailed upon him during the course of his employment under the petitioners, disability whereof rendered him unfit to perform his further duties under his employers whereupon he stood retired from services appears to, given the factual matrix extantly available, stand circumscribed by Clause (1) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules with a prescription therein of availment of invalid pension by respondent No.1 being subject to his completing the mandatorily enjoined minimum qualifying 10 years of service which condition, however, remained unsatiated by him. In other words, satiation of the aforesaid preconditions by an invalid employee stand statutorily embodied to be a sine qua non, for him to avail the benefit of Rule 38 of the Pension Rules. For reiteration, the statutory conditions encompassed in sub caluse (a) for reasons aforesaid remain unaccomplished by respondent No.1. Consequently, even if a perennial disability stands entailed upon respondent No.1 and stands spurred from his performing duties during the course of his employment under the petitioners herein sequelling his retirement from service, he would remain unrecompensed in monetary terms by ousting the operation of Rule 38 of the Pension Rules by besetting it with the rigour of clause (1) to Rule 49 of the Pension Rules whereupon obvious manifest financial hardship would accrue to him. In sequel, the rigours of clause (1) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules as invoked besides made applicable qua him by the petitioners are to suffer dilution, dilution whereof would stand begotten by resorting to the provisions of Rule 88 of the Pension Rules as aptly done by the learned Tribunal. In sequel, the rigours of clause (1) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules as invoked besides made applicable qua him by the petitioners are to suffer dilution, dilution whereof would stand begotten by resorting to the provisions of Rule 88 of the Pension Rules as aptly done by the learned Tribunal. Preeminently resort thereto would beget justice to respondent No.1. 9. In aftermath, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in directing the petitioners to consider qua respondent No.1 by theirs invoking besides applying Rule 88 of the Pension Rules qua him with an empowerment therein to them to relax the rigour of Clause (1) of Rule 49 of the Pension Rules and thereupon proceed to exercise the power of relaxation vested therein in them especially given the inexorable financial hardship accruing to respondent No.1 by his standing entailed with a 100% disability which disability stood enjoined upon him during the course of his employment under the petitioners rendering him unfit to perform his duties under his employer sequelling his retirement with a concomitant effect of his standing disabled to earn for his livelihood. In sequel, a tenable direction stood rendered by the learned Tribunal to the petitioners to proceed to invoke the provisions of Rule 88 of the Pension Rules qua respondent No.1 for mitigating the hardship aforesaid encumbered upon him. 10. The learned Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in granting the relief aforesaid to respondent No.1. A plain reading of the averments made in the application upsurges the prime factum of 100% disability standing entailed upon respondent No.1 while performing his duties under the petitioners, hence, if the relief as stood afforded and as stand encapsulated in paragraph 24 of the order of the learned Tribunal impugned before this Court, even if it remained not asked for by respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal was jurisdictionally competent to grant the relief aforesaid to him by moulding it in consonance with the apposite averments constituted qua it in the petition. 11. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned order is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of.