JUDGMENT

R.S. Pathak, J. - I have carefully read the judgment of my learned brother Gulati and I agree with him that the appeal should be allowed. But I may shortly set out the reasons which persuade me to that opinion.

2. The respondent is aggrieved by the order terminating his services. It is urged that by the impugned order he has lost a valuable right and, therefore must be taken to have been punished and that consequently he is entitled to the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The valuable right, it is said, is the right to Retiring pension. I regret that upon the facts of the present case I do not see how he can ever be said to have earned that right.

3. Of the four different kinds of pensions to which our attention has been invited, it is clear that neither compensation pension, nor invalid pension is in question here. Nor can he lay claim to superannuation pension, because admittedly his services have been terminated before he could reach the age of superannuation, that is to say, 58 years. What remains in the Retiring pension. Could he have been entitled to that? According to Article 465 (2), Civil Service Regulations (U.P. ), a Retiring pension is granted