ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, an ex-army man, after unblemished career in the Army sought appointment to the post of a Typist with respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India and was selected in the year 1989. However, he was not so appointed on account of being medically unfit. 3. The representations of the appellant went unheeded which resulted in the appellant's filing a civil suit before the Munsif, Meerut being Civil Suit No. 805 of 1991. The suit was decreed on 16.02.1994. The decree passed was for Life Insurance of India to issue appointment letter to the appellant within one month from the date of issue of the order. 4. The respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India filed an appeal, being No. 66 of 1994 before the District Judge, which was dismissed on 10.12.1994. Second Appeal was thereafter filed by the Life Insurance Corporation before the High Court of Allahabad, being S.A. No. 186 of 1995, in which stay was declined on 21.11.1996. The appellant was thus issued an appointment letter and joined service as Typist on 22.02.1997 and retired from service in April, 2006. The Second Appeal came to be dismissed only on 29.07.2016 for non-prosecution. 5. The controversy before us is qua the claim for pensionary benefits by the appellant which has been denied on account of the total stint of service being below 10 years, i.e., qualifying period of service. 6. The appellant filed a writ petition for directions to obtain the pensionary benefit but that was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.08.2017. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no doubt that qualifying service is mandatory before pensionary benefits are admissible. However, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been deprived of obtaining the qualifying service on account of being wrongly denied employment from 1989 till the issue of the appointment letter, pending the Second Appeal on 22.2.1997. If this period is taken into account, the appellant would be entitled to the pension. 9. However, learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been deprived of obtaining the qualifying service on account of being wrongly denied employment from 1989 till the issue of the appointment letter, pending the Second Appeal on 22.2.1997. If this period is taken into account, the appellant would be entitled to the pension. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn out attention to the Life Insurance Corporation Of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, more specifically, Rule 55-A. which reads as under : "55-A. Power to Relax- Where the Central Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in respect of any class or categories of person, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the requirement of the provision of that rule in a manner not inconsistent with these rules." 10. It is therefore, submitted that if any relaxation to be granted, the power vests with the Central Government. 11. We are of the view that it is a fit case for the Central Government to consider relaxation of the minimum period of service on account of the deprivation of a period of service to the appellant which would make him eligible for pension by reason of the act of the respondent which has been struck down in the suit and the appeal. Apart from this, the appellant had an exemplary service record in the armed forces. 12. Thus, we direct the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India to send the request for relaxation under Rule 55-A of the Rules within a period of 15 days from today to the Central Government and we expect the Central Government to take a favorable decision on the same within a maximum period of one month thereafter, keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 13. The appeal is,accordingly, allowed in the facts and circumstances of this case. The parties shall bear their own costs.