ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Orders impugned Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to release pension of father of petitioner w.e.f. 7.7.1984, arrears be given with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till date of realization.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. The case of the petitioners is that their father late Samant Singh Tomar was serving as Assistant Teacher in the respondent Department. He was appointed on 31.3.1964 and served the department till 6.7.1984, when he went on unauthorized leave and did not join the services. On 12.9.2008, i.e., after 24 years of his unauthorized absence, the father of the petitioners made an application to the District Coordinator AJK Shivpur for preparation of his pension case and for payment of GPF amount. The said application was made on a plain paper whereas the father of the petitioners was required to make an application in the prescribed proforma. No other communi-cation was ever made by the father of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners expired on 30.9.2010 and after his death the petitioners as well as their mother filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 467/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.1.2012 with a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner and their mother within a period of four weeks. The copy of the order of this Court was sent by the petitioners by registered post dated 17.2.2012. When the order of this Court was not complied with by the respondents, then the petitioners filed Conc. No. 520/2012. As the service book and the personal record of the father of the petitioners was not available with the Department, therefore, the Department was finding it difficult to decide his case. Thereafter, after obtaining permission from the Collector and Pension Officer on 30.9.2016, the duplicate service book of the father of the petitioners was reconstructed and the amount deposited in different accounts of the father of the petitioners was paid to the petitioners. On the basis of the duplicate service book, the case of the father of the petitioners was forwarded to District Pension Office on 3.11.2016. An objection was raised by the Pension Officer that while calculating the qualifying service for pension, the unauthorized absence from duty has not been taken into consideration and, therefore, the matter was remitted back. Accordingly, it was found by the Department that the father of the petitioners had remained in Government service w.e.f. 31.3.1964 to 6.7.1984 and thus he had served the department for 20 years, 3 months and 5 days. It was also found that during this service period, the father of the petitioners had remained on unauthorized absence for a period of 85 days from 31.3.1972 to 23.6.1972 and for 65 days from 30.4.1984 to 5.7.1984 and thus it was found that the father of the petitioners had remained on an unauthorized absence for a period of 150 days and since this period cannot be included in the qualifying service, therefore after reducing the period of an unauthorized absence of 150 days, it was found that the father of the petitioners had qualifying service of 19 years 10 months and 5 days which is less than 20 years as required under the Pension Rules. It is further submitted that after completing 20 years, if an official wants to take VRS, then he was required to give one month notice or the salary in lieu of notice but even that was not done and, therefore, it has been held that the father of the petitioners had the qualifying service of 19 years, 10 months and 5 days only, therefore, he is not entitled for pension.

3. Challenging the order passed by the respondents, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that it appears that the father