( 1 ) THE petitioner who was serving as Supervisor in the Office of the Asst superintendent of Land Records, Jamkhandi, Bijapur Dist, has challenged in this writ petition the order of the State Govt dt. 25th, Feby 1976 (Ext. A) issued under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). By the said order, notice has been given to the petitioner to retire from service after 3 months from the date of service of the order. ( 2 ) THE principal contention of Sri R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has not attained 50 years of age and as he has not completed 25 years of qualifying service, the State Govt had no competence to retire him from his service under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Rules before he attained the age of superannuation. ( 3 ) RULE 285 provides that ' a retiring pension is granted to a Govt servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for thirty years or such less time as may, for any special class of Govt servants be presribed'. The 1st paragraph of Note 1 which is relevant for the purpose of this case is extracted as follows :" A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least three months before the date on which he wishes to, retire. Govt may, by order, retire any Govt servant after he has completed twenty-five years of qualifying service or after he has attained fifty years of age, if such retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest, provided that the Govt servant concerned is given notice of 3 months before the date of retirement, or In lieu of such notice, a sum equivalent to the amount of Ms salary for a period of three months but the tension shall not be payable for the period in respect of which he receives salary in lieu of notice. . . . . . . . " ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10-4-1928. That is not disputed. . . . . . . . " ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10-4-1928. That is not disputed. It is therefore clear that the petitioner had not attained 50 years of age on the date on which the impugned order waa passed. It was made clear during the course of arguments by Sri K. S. Puttaswamy, learned 1st Addl Govt Advocate for the respondent that the impugned order was not issued on the ground that the petitioner has attained 50 years of age. It was submitted that the impugned action has been taken solely on the ground that the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service on the relevant date. As already stated, the contention of the petitioner is that he had not completed 25 years of qualifying service on the relevant date. ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts of the case are these: The petitioner was appointed as P. T. Surveyor on a temporary basis in the former State of bombay on the 8th of March 1948. He was retrenched from service on the 20th July 1951 for want of post. He was thereafter reappointed on the 18th of June 1952 and allotted to the new State of Mysore consequent upon the re-organisation of States with effect from 1-11-1956. The impugned order was passed on the 25th of February 1976. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was confirmed in service long before the impugned order was passed. It is his case that from 18-6-1952 the date on which he was reappointed, his services can be regarded as qualifying service. In other words it is his submission that the period from 18-6-1952 to 25-2-1976 can be regarded as qualifying service. It is his case that the service rendered by him from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951, when he was retrenched from service, cannot be regarded as qualifying service and that the said period cannot be. added to the period of service from 18-6-1052 to 25-2-1976. It is clear that the period from 18-6-1952 the date of reappointment till 25-2-1976 is less than 25 years. The stand taken on behalf of the respondent is that to the said period the earlier period of service rendered by the petitioner from 18-6-1952 should also be added, as that service is qualifying service under the relevant Rules. It is clear that the period from 18-6-1952 the date of reappointment till 25-2-1976 is less than 25 years. The stand taken on behalf of the respondent is that to the said period the earlier period of service rendered by the petitioner from 18-6-1952 should also be added, as that service is qualifying service under the relevant Rules. It is dear from the stand taken by the parties that unless the period from 8-3-1948 to 25-2-1976 is treated as qualifying service, there will not be the requisite period of 25 years of qualifying service entitling the State Government to take action under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Rules. The question for consideration therefore is as to whether the period from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 can be regarded as qualifying service. The said period comes to about 3 years 4 months and 13 days. The period from 18-6-1952 the date of reappointment till 25-2-1976 is little more than 23 years. ( 6 ) WHAT is contemplated by Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Rules is the oompletion of 25 years of qualifying service. The expression 'qualifying service' is not defined in Rule 8 pertaining to definitions. The expression 'qualifying service' has been used in Note 1 to Rule 285, In the absence of any express definition of the same, the said expression has to be given the meaning which has been assigned to it under the Rules. Chapter XVI of the Rules has the heading "conditions of qualifying service. " The heading. of S. 1 of the said Chapter is "definitions of qualifying service". Part IV of the Rules pertains to ordinary pension. The preamble to part IV provides that all claims regarding pension shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said Part. Conditions of qualifying service are prescrited in Chapter XVI and Rules for reckoning service are prescribed in chapter XVII. Conditions for granting pension are dealt with in Chapter xviii. Chapters XV to XXIII occur in Part IV which deals with the topic of grant of ordinary pensions. As all these Chapters deal with the common topic of the ordinary pension, the same have to be read together. ( 7 ) RULE 220 of Chapter XVI of Part IV of the Rules provides that a government servant's service does not qualify till he has completed 18 years of age'. As all these Chapters deal with the common topic of the ordinary pension, the same have to be read together. ( 7 ) RULE 220 of Chapter XVI of Part IV of the Rules provides that a government servant's service does not qualify till he has completed 18 years of age'. Rule 221 provides that 'in cases other than those referred to in Rule 220, unless it be otherwise provided by special rule or contract, the service of every Government servant begins when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed'. Rule 222 provides that 'the service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions': - (1) The service must be under Government. (2) The employment must be substantive and permanent. (3) The service must be paid for by Govemment. These three conditions prescribed under Rule 222 have been explained in great detail in the subsequent provisions. The clear effect of rule 222 is that qualifying service of a Government servant is that service which qualifies for pension. The service of a Government servant becomes qualifying service if the three conditions prescribed under Rule 222 are satisfied. In this case it is not disputed that the 1st and 3rd conditions are satisfied. The only dispute is in regard to the fulfilment of the 2nd condition. Hence it is not necessary to advert to the detailed rules pertaining to the 1st and 3rd conditions. ( 8 ) RULE 224 provides that 'service does not qualify unless the Government servant holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment but temporary service will count to the extent indicated in Rule 226', Not? 1 to rule 224 which was pressed into service by Sri Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner, may be extracted as follows :- "in the case of a Government servant retiring from service after 31st December, 1959, temporary and or officiating service under the government followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying service provided he held a substantive appointment on a permanent establishment on the date of his retirement except in respect of : (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in work charged establishments; (iii) periods of service paid from contingencies. "the proviso that temporary and/or officiating service should be followed by confirmation may be relaxed by Government in special case where for valid reasons a Government servant is not confirmed before his retirement or death while in service". ( 9 ) RULE 224-A provides that 'in respect of retirement or death while in service of Government servants on or after 1st Septr 1968, all service under Government whether temporary or permanent shall count'. Rule 224-A is prima, facie against the petitioner in that it entitles the Stats government to take into consideration in respect of Government servants retiring from service on or after 31st December 1959 service temporary or permanent. Stress was laid by Sri Goulay on the language of Note 1 to rule 224 of the Rules extracted above as the said Rule is applicable to the petitioner he being a person retiring from his service after the 31st December 1959. ( 10 ) TEMPORARY or officiating service under the Government followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post counts in full as qualifying service provided the concerned Government servant holds a substantive appointment in a permanent establishment on the date of his retirement. As already stated the petitioner held the appointment in a permanent establishment on the date of impugned order. What Note V to Rule 224 contemplates is the counting of temporary or officiating service provided the said service is followed without interruption by confirmation. It was urged by Sri Goulay that the previous service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 is not followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post. It was urged that as the petitioner has been retrenched from 20-7-1951 and reappointed on 18-6-1952, it cannot be said that there was no interruption in service in fact. Interruption in service from 20-7-1951 to 18-6-1952, is not disputed. Sri Goulay rightly maintained that the service from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1971 cannot be counted as qualifying service under Note 1 to Rule 224 of the Rules. By the application of Note 1 to Rule 224 the only period that can be regarded as qualifying service is the service rendered by the petitioner from 18-6-52 till the date of the impugned order. By the application of Note 1 to Rule 224 the only period that can be regarded as qualifying service is the service rendered by the petitioner from 18-6-52 till the date of the impugned order. What was contended by the learned 1st Addl Govt Advocate for the respondent is that though by the application of Note 1 to Rule 224 only the period from 18-6-1952 to 25-2-1976 can be regarded as qualifying service, there is another provision by the operation of which the period from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 can be regarded as qualifying service which can be added to the admitted qualifying service from 18-6-1952 to 25-2-1976. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Rule 254 as substituted by the Karnataka Civil Services (Sixth amendment) Rules, 1974, dt. 30th August 1974, published in the Karnataka gazette dt. 19th Septr 1974. Rule 254 as substituted in the year 1974 may be extracted as follows ;"unauthorised absence from duty other than the unauthorised absence referred to in Rules 106a and 162 constitutes an interruption of service entailing forfeiture of past service. Other interruptions in the service of a Govt servant shall not entail forfeiture of past servrvice. The period/periods of such interruptions will, not count as service qualifying for pension. . . . . . . . . "rule 254 occurs in Chap. XVII pertaining to Rules for reckoning service which Chapter, as already stated is in Part IV which pertains to regulating grant of pension. It occurs under the heading 'suspensions, resignations, breaks and deficiencies in service' and under the sub-heading 'interruptions'. Rule 254 is a relevant rule for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service. Rule 254 provides for three matters; (1) Unauthorised absence from duty other than the unauthorised absence referred to in Rules 106a and 162 which constitutes interruption of service entailing forfeiture of past service for pension. (2) Interruptions in service other than unauthorised absence from duty of a Govt servant shall not entail forfeiture of past service. (3) The period or periods of interruptions will not count as service qualifying for pension. If the unauthorised absence is other than the one referred to in Rules 106a and 162, the said period shall not count as qualifying service. (3) The period or periods of interruptions will not count as service qualifying for pension. If the unauthorised absence is other than the one referred to in Rules 106a and 162, the said period shall not count as qualifying service. It is not the case of any of the parties that the period from the date of retrenchment 20-7-1951 till the reappointment of the petitioner on 18-6-1952 can be regarded as unauthorised absence from duty. Hence the past service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 cannot be regarded as having been forfeited, thereby not qualifying for pension under the 1st part of Rule 254. The 2nd part of Rule 254 in express terms provides that interruptions in service by absence other than unauthorised absence, shall not entail forfeiture of past service. It is necessary to bear in mind while understanding Rule 254 the effect of Rule 221 of the Rules, which prqvides that unless it be otherwise provided by special rule or contract, the service of every Govt servant begins when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed. Hence, for the purrose of determining the qualifying service of the petitioner, what has been taken into account is the date when he took charge of the office to which he was first appointed namely 8-3-1948. It is in this background that Rule 254 has to be understood in order to determine whether the service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 can be regarded as qualifying service. From 20-7-1951 there has been interruption in service till the petitioner was reappointed on 18-6-1952. But as the 2nd part of Rule 254 provides that other interruptions in service of a Govt servant shall not entail forfeiture of past service, it follows that the past service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 cannot be forfeited unless the said period can be regarded as unauthorised absence from duty coming under the 1st part of Rule 254. As already stated it is nobody's case that the period from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 can be regarded as unauthorised absence falling under the 1st part of Rule 254. It is therefore clear that there is, in fact, interruption in service from 20-7-1951 to 18-6-1952. As already stated it is nobody's case that the period from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 can be regarded as unauthorised absence falling under the 1st part of Rule 254. It is therefore clear that there is, in fact, interruption in service from 20-7-1951 to 18-6-1952. The past service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 cannot be forfeited as there was no unauthorised absence of the petitioner as required by the 1st part of Rule 254. The last part of Rule 254 makesthe positio clear. It provides that the period or periods of interruption will not count as service qualifying for pension. After providing that past service is not forfeited under certain circumstances, the rule making authority has expressly provided that only the period of interruption will not count as service qualifying for pension. If the 2nd and 3rd part of Rule 254 are read together, they make it abundantly clear that the other interruptions in the service of a Govt servant shall not entail forfeiture of past service and that past service qualifies for pension. The clear effect of rule 254 is to treat past service which is not forfeited as service qualifying for pension. It is necessary to note that before Rule 254 was substituted in the year 1974, the old rule which dealt with 'interruptions', contained a Note, expressly providing that abolition of office or loss of appointment due to reduction of establishment shall not entail forfeiture of past service. It is clear from Rule 254 before its substitution that the service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 could be regarded as qualifying service as the interruption in service from 20-7-1951 to 18-6-1952 was owing to abolition of office or loss of appointment due to deduction of establishment. There is nothing in the newly substitutes rule 254 to indicate that the rule making authority intended to forfeit such past service which was recognised as qualifying for pension under the old Rule 254. As already stated, the language of Rule 254 of the newly substituted rule clearly indicates that such past service qualifies for pension unless the same is forfeited on the ground that there was unauthorised absence of the Govt servant. I have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that under Rule 254 the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 counts as qualifying service. I have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that under Rule 254 the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 counts as qualifying service. Note 1 to Rule 285 of the Rules does not provide that the qualifying service must be continuous qualifying service without any interruption. If the period from 8-3-1948 to 20-7-1951 has to be regarded as qualifying service, the said period has to be added to the admitted qualifying service from 18-6-1952 to 25-2-1976. If the two periods are so added, it is clear that the total length of qualifying service of the petitioner will be more than 25 years. Hence, it follows that the conditions provided under Note 1 to Rule 285 of the rules are fully satisfied in this case. ( 11 ) BEFORE concluding, it has to be observed that the petitioner having rendered service on the strength of the interim order granted by this court, he will be entitled to the salary till he is relieved from service oh the basis of the impugned order, the period of notice having since expired. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .