JUDGMENT : P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J. This writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.63 of 2021 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging the order dated 09.03.2023, dismissing his application. 2. The applicant was commissioned as a Medical Officer in the Indian Army on 19.01.1994. According to him, due to various ailments, which were attributable to his service conditions, he could not continue his service and hence, he opted for voluntary retirement from service. The Government approved his request and allowed to resign his commission and consequently, he was released from service on 16.08.2003. At that time, he was in medical category S1H1A1P3E1 for Disseminated Tuberculosis. No Release Medical Board was conducted by the Army Authorities, since as per Regulation 50 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 , an officer, who voluntarily retires, was not entitled to disability pension. After implementation of the 6 th Central Pay Commission, the Government changed the policy and now an officer, who retires voluntarily, is also entitled for disability pension. Accordingly, the applicant made a request for conducting a Medical Board, which was acceded to. But the claim for disability pension was rejected by stating that a person who has tendered resignation is not entitled for the same. The Release Medical Board, proceedings obtained by the applicant would show that the disabilities suffered by him is attributable to the service conditions and the percentage is assessed @20% for life. Hence, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.63/2021. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the O.A. It is aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 4. Heard Adv.Ratheesh.B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.A.R.Gangadas, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who has voluntarily resigned from service before completing the period of qualifying service, is entitled to disability pension as per Annexure A-3 policy letter dated 19.05.2017 since, no distinction can be made between persons who have voluntarily retired and voluntarily resigned. According to the learned counsel, there is no bar in law preventing sanctioning of disability pension to persons who have resigned. He by relying on the decision in Union of India v. Lt.Col. According to the learned counsel, there is no bar in law preventing sanctioning of disability pension to persons who have resigned. He by relying on the decision in Union of India v. Lt.Col. P.S.Bhargava [( 1997 (1) SCR 130 ] further contended that even if a person has resigned from Army, there is no automatic forfeiture of pension or gratuity and such person will be entitled to pensionary benefits. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is vast difference between voluntary retirement and resignation, and a person who has resigned from service before completion of the qualifying service, is not entitled to service pension or any other terminal benefits. He submitted that Annexure A-3 policy relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to him since, it prescribes granting of disability element of pension in addition to service pension to the Armed Forces Personnel who have retired. He further, by relying on Annexure R-7, contended that the Ministry of Defence has clarified that since no pensionary element is admissible on resignation, the provision of Annexure R-13 is not extended to persons who have resigned and this in turn shows that the case of the petitioner is not covered under Annexure A-3. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has resigned his commission, as evidenced by Annexures R-1 and R-2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has rendered service for the period from 19.1.1994 to 16.8.2003 i.e., for 9 years 6 months and 27 days. Annexure R-2 specifically states that since the petitioner has resigned, he will not be entitled to any terminal benefits. Clauses 13,14 & 15 of Annexure R-3 deals with the definition of resignation and the obligation and entitlement of the officers, who have resigned. As per it, the term 'resignation' is applicable to an officer leaving the Army before he becomes eligible by length of service for pension/gratuity or an officer seeking to voluntarily resign irrespective of the length of his service by forfeiting the gratuity/pension. As per clause 15, it is very clear that the officers who are permitted to resign are not entitled to terminal benefits. As per clause 15, it is very clear that the officers who are permitted to resign are not entitled to terminal benefits. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to note that the term 'premature retirement' as defined in clause 7, will apply only to permanent commissioned officers who have rendered 10 years or more of service and are eligible for gratuity or pension and who wish to retire before superannuation. Even in such cases of premature retirement, as per clause 9, the officers with less than 20 years, but more than 10 years of service are not entitled to any pension. Going by Annexure A3, which is relied on by the petitioner, it is to be seen that the same is applicable only to persons who were retained in service despite disqualification and who retired voluntarily or otherwise. It is also to be seen that as per Annexure A-3, disability element is granted in addition to retiring/service pension. The case of the petitioner, being one of resignation and that too before attaining the qualifying service, will not fall under the category mentioned in Annexure A-3. The said conclusion is also fortified by Annexure R-7 clarification letter dated 26 th November 2012, which is extracted below: “Consequent to the implementation of recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission contained in Para 5.1.69 of the Report by the GoI, vide MoD letter No.16(5)/2008/D(Pen/Pol) dated 29 Sep 09, it was decided that disability/war injury element shall be eligible to personnel who are retained in service despite disability which is accepted as attributable to or aggravated by mil service and have foregone lumpsum compensation in lieu of disability on their premature retirement on or after 01 Jan 06. The issue of entitlement of the above benefits to those who resign from service has been examined in consultation with Min of Defence and it has been clarified that the disability/war injury element is admissible along with Retiring/Service Pension or Retiring/Service Gratuity as per the provisions contained in Govt letter dated 29 Sep 09. Since no pensionary entitlement is admissible on resignation, the provisions of the Govt letter dated 29 Sep 09 shall not be extended to those proceeding on resignation.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Since no pensionary entitlement is admissible on resignation, the provisions of the Govt letter dated 29 Sep 09 shall not be extended to those proceeding on resignation.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in Bhargava's case (cited supra), we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. First of all, in that case, the applicant was indeed having the qualifying service to claim the pensionary benefits unlike the instant case where admittedly the petitioner is not having the qualifying service of 10 years. Secondly, the Regulations, which were applicable in that case, did not postulate an automatic forfeiture of pension and gratuity for a person resigning voluntarily, unlike the present case. The upshot of the afore discussions is that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in declining the relief of disability pension to the petitioner. Ergo, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.