ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - The principal question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service so as to entitle the Government of Uttar Pradesh to compulsorily retire him under Note 1 to .Art. 465-A of the Civil Services Regulations. 2. In 1939 the Government created the Provincial Recruiting Office for recruitment to the Emergency Commissions in the Land, Air and Navy Force. Various posts in that office were created and retained from year to year. The petitioner alleges that that office was closed immediately on the end of the Second World War. This allegation has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. The various posts in the Recruiting Office were temporary and ex-cadre. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a clerk in that office with effect from 1st April, 1941, on a fixed pay of Rs. 50 per month. He worked on that post till 15th November, 1945. With effect from 16th November, 1945, the petitioner was appointed to the post of lower division assistant in the U. P. Public Service Commission Office. He was confirmed in that post on 1st August 1948. Subsequently the petitioner passed the departmental examination and qualified for the post of upper division assistant in 1955. On 23rd September, 1967, the State Government passed the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The order purports to have been passed in exercise of the powers mentioned in Note 1 to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations on the ground that it was in the public interest to dispense with the future services of the petitioner. The relevant part of Note 1 to Regulation 465-A states that the Government retains the right to refire any Government servant after he has Completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons. The petitioner contends that he had not completed 25 -years qualifying service and consequently the Government acquired no power to retire him compulsorily. The petitioners case is, that he joined service in the Public Service Commission office on 16-11-1945, and he had till the date of the impugned refer completed only about 22 years of service. He had also not completed 50 years of age. 3. The petitioners case is, that he joined service in the Public Service Commission office on 16-11-1945, and he had till the date of the impugned refer completed only about 22 years of service. He had also not completed 50 years of age. 3. The case of the State Government, however, is that the petitioner worked in the Provincial Recruiting Office and then without any break in his service joined service in the Public Service Commission Office. Since the Provincial Recruiting Office was not a work-charged establishment nor was the petitioner paid from the contingencies and further because there was no evidence to suggest that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Provincial Recruiting Office from 1st April, 1941, to 15th November, 1945, was declared non-pensionable, it was liable to be counted for determining the qualifying service. If the period from 1st April, 1941, to 15th November, 1945, is taken into consideration, the petitioner would have completed more than 25 years qualifying service. 4. In order to determine the significance of the term "qualifying service", the relevant regulations may be seen. Art 361 of the Civil Service Regulations lays down the conditions of qualifying service. It states: "The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First - The service must be under Government. Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third - The service must be paid by Government. 5. The three conditions are explained is the following articles. The second condition, namely, that the employment must be substantive and permanent is dealt with by Articles 368 to 384. Article 368 states that the service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. This Article is: not satisfied because it is no ones case that the Provincial Recruiting Office was a permanent establishment. Article 370 is relevant. This article after its amendment by Government of Uttar Pradesh Notification No. G-2-3946/X-904 (9)-1960 dated March 29, 62, reads as follows:- "370. An officer may count continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except- (i) Periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment. (ii) Periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and (iii) Periods of service in a post paid from contingencies. An officer may count continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except- (i) Periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment. (ii) Periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and (iii) Periods of service in a post paid from contingencies. Note.-If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between periods of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service." 6. Under the first clause, periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable service cannot be counted. The question is whether the Provincial Recruiting Office was a non-pensionable establishment. It was undoubtedly a temporary establishment, but that by itself is not conclusive. A perusal of the note to Article 370 shows that a pensionable establishment also may have temporary service. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the Provincial Recruiting Office, but the fact whether that establishment was pensionable or non-pensionable can be said to be within the special knowledge of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The State Government has scrupulously avoided stating in its counter-affidavit that the Provincial Recruiting Office was a pensionable establishment. It was temporary establishment. It was wound up after the end of the Second World War. These facts suggest that it was not a pensionable establishment. It would hence be a non-pensionable establishment within the meaning of Article 370. The petitioner or the respondent State hence could not count temporary service in the Provincial Recruiting Office for purposes of computing the qualifying service. If the service rendered by the petitioner in the Provincial Recruiting Office is excluded it is apparent that the petitioner had not completed 25 years qualifying service. Regulation 465-A would not be attracted. 7. For the State it was, however, urged that in view of Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulations every service qualifies for pension. The proviso to that article says that it is open to local Government to rule that service of any class of officers serving under it does not qualify for pension. Regulation 465-A would not be attracted. 7. For the State it was, however, urged that in view of Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulations every service qualifies for pension. The proviso to that article says that it is open to local Government to rule that service of any class of officers serving under it does not qualify for pension. In my opinion, this proviso does not lead to the conclusion that unless the local Government so rules, the service of every class of officers would qualify for pension. Such an interpretation would militate against the express provisions of Article 361 and the following articles. Article 370, for instance, does leave any discretion with the State Government. Services falling within the three clauses of Article 370 do not at all qualify for pension. It is not dependent upon any muling of the local Government. The proviso to Article 350 would at the best apply to such services which do qualify for pension under the Civil Service Regulations. It is open to the local Government to rule that even such service would not qualify for pension. Article 361-A reads: "361-A. The Govt, of India may, however, in the case of service paid from General Revenues, even though either or both of conditions (1) and (2) are fulfilled- (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension; (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in each case, allow service rendered by an officer to count for pension. Subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose, the Government of India may delegate its powers under this Article to Provincial Governments, minor Local Governments and Heads of Departments." 8. Clause (1) of this Article will not apply because no party has stated that the service in Provincial Recruiting Office was declared to qualify for pension. Clause (2) also, in my opinion, will not apply. Under it the Government can allow the service rendered by an officer to count for pension subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in an individual case. The respondents have not stated that the State Government passed an order under Cl. (2) in respect of the petitioner. The course of events in relation to the petitioner also suggests that no such order was passed. 9. The respondents have not stated that the State Government passed an order under Cl. (2) in respect of the petitioner. The course of events in relation to the petitioner also suggests that no such order was passed. 9. It appears that from 1st April, 1947, the pay-scales were revised. The petitioners pay was fixed in the revised scales. Some dispute arose. It was suggested that the petitioners pay had been fixed at a higher stage. The petitioner disputed it. On 13th May, 1950, the State Government issued an order stating that the period of service rendered by the petitioner from April 1, 1944, onwards in the Provincial Recruiting Office in addition to the period of service rendered by him in that scale in the office of the Public Service Commission should be taken into account in the fixation of his pay in the revised 1947 scales of pay. Even if this is supposed to be an order allowing the service rendered by an officer to count for pension, it will not help the respondent because under it the service from 1st April, 1944, onwards alone was permitted to be counted. The petitioner pressed for fixation of his pay after taking into consideration the entire service rendered by him in the Provincial Recruiting Office. The Accountant-Generals Office appears to have raised an objection. Ultimately, the Government dropped the proposal to refix the pay of the petitioner after counting the whole of the petitioners service in the Provincial Recruiting Office (vide its order dated 10th May, 1954, Annexure D to the petition). It is thus clear that the petitioners service prior to 1st April, 1944, was not taken into consideration even for fixing his initial salary. It cannot hence be presumed that the Government allowed that service to count for pension under Clause (2) to Article 361-A. 10. It is apparent that the petitioner had not completed 25 years qualifying service when the impugned order was passed on 23rd September, 1967. The impugned order was without the authority of law. 11. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner would get his costs from respondent.