authorities did not grant relief as claimed by the employee, and it is stated that a communication was made rejecting his claim for invalid pension (neither challenge) nor even filed before this Court). The deceased employee filed a review petition seeking review of order dated 13.12.2013. The learned Single Judge, however, at that stage, noticed specific provision contained in Rule 49 of Rules of 1972 and the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs Bashirbhai R Khilji, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 16 , wherein it was held that in order to earn pension, irrespective of the nature of the pension, one has to complete the minimum qualifying period of service. Having noticed this aspect, which was not earlier brought to the notice of learned Single Judge, learned Single Judge held that writ petitioner was not entitled to get invalid pension as he had not completed 10 years of service. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before the Court that it is a case where the employee was discharged from the services stating that he was invalidated out. His submission is that irrespective of whether or not he has completed 10 years of service, if he has been invalidated out and discharged from service on the ground of mental or physical infirmity, the Rule of invalid pension entitles him to grant of invalid pension. 6. His further submission is that Rule 38 & 49 of Rules of 1972 have to be read harmoniously and interpreted like a beneficial legislation. Referring to proviso contained in Rule 49(2)(c) of Rules of 1972, he would submit that non obstante clause clearly overrides Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 49 and, therefore, the need of completion of minimum qualifying period of service is not the
