ORDER K. N. Singh, J. - The petitioner was in the service of the State Government as a Judicial Officer. He was placed under suspension in July. 1967. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were taken against him on certain charges and the enquiry was referred to the Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, he attained the age of superannuation. The Government did not issue any order retaining the petitioner in service. It permitted the petitioner to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter the petitioner claimed pension and gratuity. The State Government by its order dated 8-5-1972 rejected the petitioners claim. Aggrieved the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders of the State Government dated 8-5-1972 and for the issue of mandamus directing the State Government to treat the petitioner as confirmed Judicial Officer with effect from 22-11-1964. 2. The petitioner was a temporary Government servant, he was never confirmed on the post of judicial Magistrate. He has failed to place any order of the State Government making him permanent on that post. Thus he continued to be a temporary Government servant throughout his service. Under Articles 349 and 361 of the Civil Service Regulations only a confirmed Government servant appointed in substantive capacity is entitled to pension. Since the petitioner was a temporary Government servant, he is not entitled to any pension. I have taken a similar view in Swami Saran Saxena v. State of U. P., Writ Petition No. 6203 of 1974, decided on 17-9-1975 (All). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the petitioner was appointed substantively against a permanent post on probation for a period of two years he became permanent on the expiry of period of probation because no order was issued extending the petitioners period of probation. He further urged that by the order dated 27-7-1963. Annexure-A-l to the petition, the petitioner was appointed permanently on the post of Judicial Officer, as such he acquired status of a permanent Government servant, therefore, he is entitled to pension and gratuity and other allowances after his retirement. The Governor has framed Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution laying down rules for recruitment, appointment, confirmation and fixation of seniority of Judicial Officers. The Governor has framed Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution laying down rules for recruitment, appointment, confirmation and fixation of seniority of Judicial Officers. These rules are known as U. P. Judicial Officer Service Rules, 1962. Rules 22 and 23 are in the following terms : - "Rule 22. Probation - (1) Every candidate on appointment to the service in or against a substantive vacancy shall be placed on probation for two years. provided that the Governor may extend the period of probation upto a specified date in individual cases. (2) If it appears at any time during or at the end of the period of Probation or extended period of Probation that an officer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he may be removed from service without entitling him to any compensation. (3) Continuous service rendered in any officiating or temporary capacity in a post included in the cadre of the service may be taken into account in computing the period of probation. Rule 23. Confirmation - (1) A probationer shall be confirmed in the post at the end of his period of probation or extended period of probation if the Commission (Public Service Commission) reports that he is fit for confirmation and that his integrity is certified and the Governor is satisfied that he is otherwise fit for confirmation. (2) All confirmations made under this rule shall be notified in the Official Gazette." Rule 22 lays down that every candidate shall be appointed against a substantive vacancy on probation for a period of two years. The Governor may extend that period upto a "specified date" in individual cases. It is open to the State Government to dispense with the services of a probationer during the period of probation or during the extended period of probation. Rule 23 lays down that a probationer shall be confirmed on the post of Judicial Officer, if he successfully completes the period of probation or extended period of probation and if the Public Service Commission finds him fit for confirmation and if his integrity is certified. Even after this report is obtained and certificate is issued the officer is not entitled to confirmation as of right unless the Governor is satisfied that the officer is otherwise fit for confirmation. Even after this report is obtained and certificate is issued the officer is not entitled to confirmation as of right unless the Governor is satisfied that the officer is otherwise fit for confirmation. It is noteworthy that Rule 22 does not prescribe any other limit on the power of the State Government or the Governor to extend the period of probation unlike rules applicable to other services where the power to extend period of probation is restricted by fixing period for which probationary period can be extended. Rule 22, however, places no such restriction on the power of the Governor with the result the period of probation can be extended without any limit. Rule 23 does not contemplate automatic confirmation on the expiry of period of probation. On the contrary it contemplates a positive order by the Governor confirming an officer who is found otherwise fit for confirmation. There is no provision in the Rules that an officer shall be deemed confirmed after the expiry of period of probation. If the extended period of probation expires and no further order of extension is issued, the Officer cannot claim automatic confirmation, instead he continues to be on probation. In Sukhbans Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 , it was laid down that a probationer cannot after the expiry of probation, automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of service, only of course if the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result. In the absence of any such rule the officer after the expiry of period of probation continues to be a probationer and he acquires no title for a substantive permanent appointment, and he does not become a permanent member of service. The principles laid down in Sukhbans Singh's case are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. There is no dispute about the facts, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years on a permanent post of Judicial Officer, after the expiry of the period of probation no order was issued by the Government extending his period of probation nor any order was issued confirming him on the post of Judicial Officer. 4. There is no dispute about the facts, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years on a permanent post of Judicial Officer, after the expiry of the period of probation no order was issued by the Government extending his period of probation nor any order was issued confirming him on the post of Judicial Officer. In the absence of any positive order as contemplated by Rule 23, the petitioner continued to be a probationer and he acquired no title to become a permanent member of service of Judicial Officers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the State of Haryana v. Rajendra Sareen, AIR 1972 SC 1004 : (1972 Lab IC 546), in support of his contention that after the expiry of period of probation and in the absence of any further order extending the period of probation, the petitioner automatically became permanent as he had been appointed substantively against a permanent vacancy. In my opinion the petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the case of Rajendra Sareen. In that case Rule 10 (3) of the Gazetted Service Rules contained a provision that the probationary period of a Government Servant shall not be extended beyond the period of three years. It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed that if an officer was appointed on a permanent post against substantive vacancy- and if he completed initial period of probation or extended period of probation, an inference could be drawn that he became permanent member of the service. As already discussed there is no provision in Judicial Officer Service Rules like those as contained in Rule 10 (3) of the Gazetted Service Rule of Haryana State. 6. Lastly it is urged that the petitioner completed 55 years of age in 1905, but he was not retired from service, instead he was allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation, because the State Government was satisfied with his work and conduct which would show that the petitioners work was appreciated, hence he was entitled to confirmation. I find no merit in this contention. I find no merit in this contention. No doubt the petitioner was allowed to continue in service even after he attained the age of 55 years, but in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is asserted that since proceedings were pending against the petitioner and enquiry was being held by the Criminal Investigation Department of the State Government, he was retained in service pending enquiry so that enquiry could be completed. On the report of the Criminal Investigation Department, the petitioner was suspended and a charge sheet was framed and the matter was referred to the Administrative Tribunal for holding disciplinary trial against the petitioner. During all this time the State Government permitted the petitioner to continue in service so that the disciplinary proceedings could be finalised. These facts belie petitioner's contention that the State Government was satisfied with his work and conduct and for that reason it allowed him to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government has not paid gratuity to the petitioner even though he was entitled to it. This grievance is outside the scope of this petition. The petitioner can approach the appropriate authority for the payment of his gratuity, if any. It is not necessary to issue any direction in this regard. 8. In view of the above discussion the petition fails, it is accordingly dismissed.There will be no order to costs.