ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 12.07.2018 in O.A.No.3670 of 2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal. 2. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III argued the matter for the State, while the respondent was represented by Sri K.Ram Mohan, learned senior counsel, who was instructed by Sri Vijaya Saradhi. 3. Learned Government Pleader points out that the facts in the case are not really in dispute in so far as the period of service etc., are concerned. The respondent was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in September 1958. He worked like that till 31.03.1969. Thereafter he never reported for duty. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that in view of his date of birth, the respondent was deemed to be retired on 31.05.1999. It is pointed out that for a period of 30 years i.e. from 01.04.1969 till 31.05.1999, the petitioner never reported for duty, did not apply for leave etc., and it is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.260 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 04.09.2003, if an employee is on unauthorized leave for a period of one year, the penalty of removal of service is to be imposed. It is also submitted that no Government servant would be entitled to leave beyond five (5) years and willful absence from duty not covered by any leave would be treated as ‘dies-non’ for all purposes. The respondent after about 30 years of deemed retirement, submitted a letter dated 21.06.2012 seeking for pensionary benefits etc. The same was rejected by a memo dated 14.07.2015. It is submitted that the same was challenged by filing O.A.No.3670 of 2016, which was allowed overlooking these fundamental aspects. It is submitted that the respondent’s continuous absence resulted in deemed removal. The leave beyond five (5) years is also not permissible and the period shall be treated as ‘dies-non’ for all purposes. The respondent had also absconded for duties and never sought any relief within time. It is also submitted that as per the decision in Civil Appeal.No.2763 of 2018, if such belated claims are entertained, there would be administrative chaos. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition should be allowed, setting aside the order in O.A.No.3670 of 2016. 5. In reply, it is pointed out that the petitioners are raising the wrong issues. It is also submitted that as per the decision in Civil Appeal.No.2763 of 2018, if such belated claims are entertained, there would be administrative chaos. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition should be allowed, setting aside the order in O.A.No.3670 of 2016. 5. In reply, it is pointed out that the petitioners are raising the wrong issues. It is submitted that the core issue raised in this case is about the eligibility of the respondent towards pension for the actual period of service and not for the period on which he was on leave. It is pointed out that the petitioner had completed 10 years 7 months of service. Therefore, his claim is for the pension for the service rendered. 6. Learned senior counsel points out that even if the respondent is deemed to have been terminated from service or if the rule says that it should be treated as ‘dies-non’ etc., but for period he had actually rendered service, he is entitled to pension. Learned senior counsel points out that even on the issue of delay, if the claim is genuine, the right cannot be denied to the respondent. It is pointed out that by granting pension for the actual period of service, there will not be any chaos since the claim relates to the individual period of service rendered and will not in any way effect third parties. It is pointed out that the Tribunal had considered the correct case law in paras 11 and 14 before coming to the conclusions. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim should be dismissed. 7. Court: This Court notices that there is no dispute essentially about the facts. The respondent rendered service for a period of 10 years 7 months from 01.09.1958 to 31.03.1969 i.e. he was in service for 10 years 7 months. Thereafter, from 01.04.1969, he did not report for duty and was absconding. By virtue of his date of birth, his date of superannuation is 31.05.1999. As per part B of Rule 45 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, a minimum service of six monthly periods of 20 units is to be considered for grant of pension. A period of 10 years is also sufficient for calculating and disbursing pension. It is clear that the respondent’s claim is only for the pension he is entitled to for the period that he was in actual service. 8. A period of 10 years is also sufficient for calculating and disbursing pension. It is clear that the respondent’s claim is only for the pension he is entitled to for the period that he was in actual service. 8. In the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SSC 648, a similar issue was considered in para 11 of the impugned judgment and the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief can be granted despite the delay, since it does not affect the rights of the third parties. If the claim involves issues relating to seniority, promotion etc., which would affect the others, delay would be a ground to deny the claim. As far as consequential relief of recovery of arrears for past period is concerned, principles relating to recovery will apply and high Courts would normally restrict the claim to three years. 9. In the opinion of this Court, this judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case. The respondent is making an individual claim. The rights of third parties are not involved and merely on the ground of delay, the respondent’s claim cannot be rejected. Pension is also a right and not a bounty as per law. The apex Court’s judgment in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendera Kumar Srivastava in Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013 quoted in para 14 is also apt and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also noticed by the Tribunal that no order of dismissal by way of penalty was passed against the respondent. In fact, the case that the petitioners have set up is that an employee would be deemed to have resigned from service in view of his continuous absence. 10. In the case on hand, even though the applicant was absconding from 01.04.1969 to 31.03.1999, no penal action was taken against him. The respondent also never sought regularization of the service and wanted his pension only. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no errors, legal or otherwise in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 12. In the opinion of this Court, it is a reasoned order correctly applying the relevant case law to the facts. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no errors, legal or otherwise in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 12. In the opinion of this Court, it is a reasoned order correctly applying the relevant case law to the facts. The respondent is merely seeking the pension for the service of 10 years 7 months that he has rendered. It is also noticed that due to pecuniary difficulties, he is making this claim now. Rejecting it only on the ground of delay would not be proper since the law on the subject supports the case of the respondent. 13. This Court finds no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitioners are directed to comply with the orders in the shortest possible time since it is a claim for pension. 14. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.