I think you did not get me clearly.
Agree, Rule 27 is not applicable in his case because of sub-rule (a),
(b) and (c) and also the second proviso; and further because it was
not a normal retirement.
But my doubt is, why he is not eligible under Rule 31 (5) – there
are only 2 conditions and he fulfills both - had more than 5 years
balance service and even after adding 5 years, the total period is
less than 33 years.
When the Supreme Court has held that the termination is ‘voluntary
Retirement’ within the ambit of Rule 31, I feel, Mr. Amin is eligible
for the additional 5 years.