K. Vinod Chandran,J.

1. Army Postal Service (for short "APS") is manned mostly by experienced employees of Postal Department of Government of India, taken on deputation. These non-Regular-Cadre officers taken on deputation and working along with regular cadre officers and other ranks of Army during service mostly in forward areas are given ranks, uniform, pay and other benefits by the Army. However, the Postal employees going on deputation to Army retain their lien in parent department and retire on superannuation under the Service Rules of the Postal Department. Respondent is one such person who went from Postal Department on deputation to the Army, served rest of his service in the Army, availed housing loan from the Postal Department by virtue of his lien in service, retired at the age of 58 in the rank of Acting Lieutenant Colonel, though regular Army Lieutenant Colonel retires at the age of 52. While every similarly placed Postal employee retiring after service in the Army claim retirement benefits and pension from Postal Department, respondent wants pension from Army as a retired Lieutenant Colonel which is declined. It is this unique claim of the respondent to have duration of service under Postal Service by virtue of his lien; and pension from Army that led to the complex litigation in two High Courts.

2. The Union of India and its Officers are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing computation of pension and other benefits due to the respondent treating him as having retired from the Army as Lieutenant Colonel, with effect from 30.04.2000. The review petition filed by the official respondents in the writ petition was also dismissed. The judgment in the writ petition and also the order in the review petition are both assailed in this appeal. Both the judgment and the order relied on Exhibit P16 judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to hold that the respondent is entitled for retirement benefits as a Lieutenant Colonel retired from the Army. The respondent has also filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the judgment in the writ petition.

3. The facts as discernible from the writ petition are as follows: The respondent was first appointed as a Time Scale Clerk on 14.02.1963 in the Department of Posts, Kerala Circle. In the year 1965, willingness was called for from employees of the Department of Posts for serving in APS. The respondent was then appointed as Warrant Officer on 21.09.1965 on the establishment of the Regular Army by Exhibit P1 dated 10.06.1971. Subsequently, the respondent was appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the rank of Naib-Subedar by Exhibit P2 dated 18.10.1979 with effect from 9.10.1973. The respondent then was granted a Commission and was appointed as a Commissioned Officer in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by Exhibit P3 dated 18.10.1979 with effect from 28.07.1976. The respondent claims that subsequently he was granted his due promotions in the higher ranks and was eventually promoted as an Acting Lieutenant Colonel by Exhibit P5 and subsequently regularised in the rank. While so, by Exhibit P9 the respondent was requested to make an application for extension of service in the APS by reason of his impending expiry of deputation on account of superannuation and consequent relinquishment of the Temporary Commission in APS. As an alternative, taking into consideration the fact that the extension applied for will not be automatic, the respondent was also required to submit an application for voluntary retirement or reversion to the civil parent department. This option was granted, even according to the respondent, by reason of the extension in retirement age granted by the Central Government for two years, i.e., from 58 to 60 years, evidenced by Exhibit P8. Hence, the situation was that any employee on deputation from a civil department, serving in the Army, was, by virtue of extension of retirement age, required to