( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri T. Ramakrishnaiah has, in this writ petition, prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State of Karnataka to grant him pension and gratuity and other consequential reliefs in accoi dance with the Karnataka Civil Services Rules in respect of the entire period of service rendered by him as a non-official Member of the Karnataka Sales tax Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed in the first instance as a non-official member on 16th July 1p58. Thereafter several orders have been passed from time to time appointing him for a specific period as non-official Member of the tribunal. It is enough to refer to the last order d/. 8th Novr, 1971, produced in the case as Ext. H, by which the term of appointment of the petitioner was extended from 9-12-1971 for a further period of two months. It is after the expiry of the extended period of two months that he vacated the office on 8th Febry 1972. He was, however, granted the leave that was to his credit for a period of 52 days as terminal leave from 9-2-1972. He was also able to secure monetary benefits for the aforesaid period of leave. ( 3 ) THE petitioner moved the State Govt for grant of pension and gratuity. The State Govt by its order d/. 3rd April, 1974 informed the petitioner that his request for pension is not tenable and cannot be granted. The said order is produced as Ext. M. ( 4 ) THE appointment of a non-official Member of the Tribunal is regulated by the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). S. 4 of the Act provides that the State Govt shall appoint an Appellate tribunal consisting of a Chairman and two other members to exercise the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by or under the Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force. S. 4 of the Act provides that the State Govt shall appoint an Appellate tribunal consisting of a Chairman and two other members to exercise the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by or under the Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force. It also provides that the Chairman shall be a judicial officer not below the rank of a Dist judge, and of the qther two members, one shall be an officer of the Commercial taxes Dept not below the rank of a Deputy Commr and the other shall be a non-official practising the profession of Accountancy for a period of not less than five years and who is an Accountant as defined in the chartered Accountants Act, 1949. As already stated the petitioner was appointed as a non-official member under S. 4 of the Act. S. 38 (1) of the Act empowers the State Govt to make rules regulating the term of office and conditions of service of members of the Appellate Tribunal. The State Govt, in exercise of its power, has framed relevant rules regulating the conditions of service of the Members of the Tribunal including those of the non-official members. The relevant rule that requires consideration in this case is Rule 64 of the karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The said rule prescribes the terms and conditions of service of the non-official members. Sub-rule (6) of the said rule provides that the non-official member shall be eligible for gratuity equivalent to one month's pay for each completed year of service including interruption or interruptions, if any, the total duration of which does not exceed 180 days but shall not be eligible for any pension or other remuneration. The said sub-rule to this effect was substituted by Notification d/. 7th April, 1971. It is clear from this sub-rule that the non-official member is not eligible for pension, but he is eligible for gratuity subject to the conditions and limitations specified in sub-rule (6 ). When in express terms the statutory rule states that a non-offlcial member is not entitled to pension, it is difficult to accede to the contention of Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is entitled to pension. When in express terms the statutory rule states that a non-offlcial member is not entitled to pension, it is difficult to accede to the contention of Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is entitled to pension. ( 5 ) IT was contended by Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar that sub- rule (6) of Rule 64 came to be enforced on 7th April 1971 and that the same does not govern the petitioner inasmuch as he was originally appointed as a non-official Member before the said amendment was made. It was submitted that the petitioner's original appointment was in the year 1958. But it has to be noticed that the appointment of the petitioner was only for a particular term which term came to be extended from time to time. The last appointment was made under the order of the State Govt d/. 8th Novr, 1971, produced in the case as Ext. H, by which the period of the appointment of the petitioner was extended for a period of two months ending on 8th Febry, 1972. The relevant appointment that has to be taken into consideration is the one made under the order of the Govt d. 8th Novr, 1971. By that time sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 had been substituted by Notification dated 7th April 1971. It is therefore clear that the said sub-rule clearly governs the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is also necessary to point out that sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 as it existed before its substitution on 7th April 1971 expressly stated that the ron-official member shall not be eligible for any pension, gratuity or other remuneration. It is therefore clear that gub-rule (6) of Rule 64 before its amendment was really far more disadvantageous to the petitioner in that he was not eligible under the said rule even to gratuity. If the petitioner's contention is right, then he would be governed by sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 as it existed before its substitution on 7th April 1971 in which case, he would not be entitled even to gratuity. If the petitioner's contention is right, then he would be governed by sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 as it existed before its substitution on 7th April 1971 in which case, he would not be entitled even to gratuity. ( 7 ) IT was, hqwever, contended by Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar that whatever may be the position so far as the provisions of the Sales Tax Act and the Rules thereunder are concerned, he has an independent right to get pension in view of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules framed by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the constn. As the terms and conditions of service are expressly governed by a special statute and special set of rules, it is obvious that the petitioner cannot claim any relief on the basis of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules to the extent express provision has been made in the Karnatakka Sales Tax rules 1957. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise I do not find any substance in the contention of sri Venkataranga lyengar. Rule 258 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules provides that the pensions are divided into four classes viz, (i) compensation pension, (ii) invalid pension, (iii) superannuation pension, and (iv) retiring pension. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to superannuation pension. The relevant rules in this behalf are Rules 283 and 284 occurring in S. 4 of Chap. 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Rule 283 provides that a superannuation pension is granted to a Govt servant entitled or compelled, by rule, to retire at a particular age. (Vide Rule 95 ). Rule 284 provides that the Govt servant who has attained the age of 55 years may, at his option, retire from the service on a superannuation pension. The relevant rule that needs examination is Rule 283 of the Karnataka, Civil services Rules. It clearly provides that a govt servant is entitled to superanimation pension if he is entitled to or compelled, by rule, to retire at a particular age. (Vide Rule 95 ). Rule 95 prescribes the age of superannuation. It is clear from the series of orders of appointment made in favour of the petitioner that he was appointed for a specific term which term was extended from time to time. (Vide Rule 95 ). Rule 95 prescribes the age of superannuation. It is clear from the series of orders of appointment made in favour of the petitioner that he was appointed for a specific term which term was extended from time to time. The petitioner, therefore, ceased to hold office as a ncn-official Member of the Tribunal not because he is entitled to or compelled to retire at a particular age, but because the term fixed under the order of apppointment expired. It is, therefore, clear that he does not satisfy the requirements of the conditions prescribed by Rule 283 of the Karnataka civil Services Rules. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of rule 95 inasmuch as his appointment was for a specific term. Hence even the alternate argument put forward by Sri Venkataranga lyengar has to fail. ( 9 ) AS the petitioner has rested his case mainly for grant of pension, it appears that his case for grant of gratuity under sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 has not at all been examined by the respondent. Sri S. G. Doddakalegowda. learned High Court Govt Pleader placed reliance on sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 in support of his contention that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of pension. But the same sub-rule provides that a non-official member shall be eligible for gratuity equivalent to one month's pay for each completed vear of service including interruption or interruptions, if any, the total duration of which does not exceed 180 days. As the case of the petitioner for grant of gratuity has not been examined, it is but proper that an appropriate direction should be issued in this behalf. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondent-State Govt is directed to examine the case of the petitioner for grant of gratuity under sub-rule (6) of Rule 64 of the Karnataka sales Tax Rules, 1957 and to pass appropriate orders in that behalf as expeditiously as possible. No costs. --- *** --- .