ORDER A.N. Verma , J. - The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. He retired from service while holding the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 28-2-1974. Thirteen years later, the petitioner filed this petition claiming the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to play gratuity and pension to him for the entire period of service. 2. A preliminary objection was raised at the hearing of the petition by Sri S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of gross laches. There is no doubt that the petition is highly belated and if there had been some merit in the petition a serious question would have arisen as to whether the relief claimed by the petitioner should not be refused at least in regard to the period intervening the petitioner retirement and the (late on which the petition was presented. However, as the petition is failing on merits, I am not dilating on this point further. 3. Reverting to the facts essential for the decision of the petition, the position is that the petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways U.P. Lucknow on 4-2-1948 as a conductor and soon thereafter, he was promoted to the post of a Booking Clerk. On 21-2-1956, he was confirmed on that post and was later promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector w.e.f. 1-4-1957 from which post he retired on 28-2-1974. After his retirement, he pressed his claim for pension which was denied on the short ground that at the time of his retirement the petitioner was not holding any pensionable post. 4. The Department has contested the claim of the petitioner in this Court on the same ground, namely, that he was not holding any pensionable post. The post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was, it is submitted by the respondents, a non-pensionable post and hence there is no question of payment of any pension to the petitioner. 5. The sole controversy raised in this case by the learned counsel for the parties was whether the petitioner held a pensionable post at the time of his retirement from service. Regulation 350 of the Civil Service Regulations as adopted for application in Uttar Pradesh provides : "350.- All Establishments whether temporary or permanent shall be deemed to be Pensionable Establishment. The sole controversy raised in this case by the learned counsel for the parties was whether the petitioner held a pensionable post at the time of his retirement from service. Regulation 350 of the Civil Service Regulations as adopted for application in Uttar Pradesh provides : "350.- All Establishments whether temporary or permanent shall be deemed to be Pensionable Establishment. Provided that it is open to the State Government to rule that the service in any Establishment does not qualify for pension. Service in non gazetted post in Government Technical and Industrial Institution in U.P. does not qualify in case of person appointed to such post on or after 16-11-1938. Exception : This rule does not apply to post declared pensionable in Shiram (Kha) Vibhag and Udyog (Gha) Vibhag G.C. No. 375-ED/XV III-D-AQ-16-EB-60 dated 5-6-1963." 6. Now there are two types of posts in the Government : (i) pensionable, and, (ii) non-pensionable. In respect of non-pensionable Government Servants, there is a provision for Contributory Provident Fund in the shape of Contributory Provident Fund (U.P.) Rules, 1933 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Rr. 41, 42 and 44 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. In the said Rule, a Government Servant holding a non-pensionable post was required to make a contribution every month and on retirement the same was paid over to the employee along with the Government Contribution at a specified rate. The scheme was subsequently replaced by Contributory Provident Fund Act which was made applicable to the non-pensionable employees of the State Government. 7. As regards the Government Servants holding pensionable posts, a scheme was framed for payment of pension and provident fund called the U.P. Contributory Provident and Pension Fund Insurance Scheme, 1948. The Scheme was made applicable to all Government Servants who hold a lien on a permanent pensionable post under the Government. 8. In the year 1947, the State Government decided to run its own transport services and therefore, created a separate temporary department known as U.P. Government Roadways. A new set of service conditions for temporary employees of the Roadways Organisation was accordingly laid down vide G.O. No. 3014/D/XXX-135.V/59 dated 16th September, 1960. 8A. In terms of the proviso to Regulation 350 quoted above, the Government issued a separate order declaring certain posts in the Transport and Roadways Department as pensionable, vide G.O. dated 28-10-1960. A new set of service conditions for temporary employees of the Roadways Organisation was accordingly laid down vide G.O. No. 3014/D/XXX-135.V/59 dated 16th September, 1960. 8A. In terms of the proviso to Regulation 350 quoted above, the Government issued a separate order declaring certain posts in the Transport and Roadways Department as pensionable, vide G.O. dated 28-10-1960. The relevant portion of this G.O. has important bearing. It provides : "In continuation of G.O. No. 3014 D/XXX-135-V/1959 dated 16-9-1960, I am directed to say that the question of declaring the permanent posts in the Roadways organisation (including the Roadways Central Workshop Kanpur) as pensionable has been under the consideration of Government for sometime past. In this connection, the Governor has been pleased to order that the permanent gazetted and non-gazetted incumbents of the following three categories would be entitled to the contributory Provident Fund cum Pension Rules : (a) The employees working in the office establishment of the Assistant General Managers, General Managers, Service Managers, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Roadways Central Workshop, Kanpur and Headquarter Office of the Transport Commissioner. (b) Supervisory staff of the rank of Junior Station Incharge and above on the traffic side. (c) Technical staff of the rank of Junior Foreman and above on the Engineering side." Clause 2 of this G.O., however, states : "The Governor has been further pleased to order, under note13 below Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulation that the rest of the permanent non-gazetted Roadways employees both in the traffic and engineering sections of the organisation would be treated as non-pensionable. The incumbents of the permanent non-pensionable posts referred to above will be eligible for Provident Fund benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act." 9. In amplification of the G.O. dated 28-10-1960, another G.O. No. 1874-A.II/XXX.A-10-N/61 dated 21-4-1961 was issued stating that the posts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the G.O. dated 28-10-1960 should be treated as pensionable w.e.f. the date they were converted into permanent post. This was followed by another G.O. dated 8-9-1961 in which the State Government made provisions for earned leave, extraordinary leave in respect of permanent non-pensionable employees in the Roadways Organisation. This was followed by another G.O. dated 8-9-1961 in which the State Government made provisions for earned leave, extraordinary leave in respect of permanent non-pensionable employees in the Roadways Organisation. It is important to note that this G.O. categorically states that the permanent Roadways employees not covered by the G.O. dated 28-10-1960 would be treated as holders of non-pensionable post, but would be entitled to the benefits of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Vide D.O. letter AG/530FF/57 dated 11-12-1962 the position was made further explicit by stating that all permanent gazetted posts of Roadways were pensionable and certain non-gazetted permanent posts mentioned there were also to be treated as pensionable. Significantly, the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector was not included in that list. 10. With effect from 1-6-1972, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was constituted under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. However, all the employees of the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways holding permanent post as per G.O. dated 28th October, 1960 were declared entitled to pension except : "(a) those working on daily wages. (b) those appointed on ad hoc basis. (c) those who had not completed minimum service period prescribed for the post. (d) those holding posts which were not, declared pensionable. (e) those who had been removed from service after departmental inquiry and those who had been found guilty of criminal charges." 11. As the petitioner's post was not declared pensionable, it is apparent that he could not be said to have been holding a pensionable post at the time of his retirement. 12. The position that the petitioner was not holding a pensionable post was also accepted by the petitioner himself as he became member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, which, as mentioned above, was applicable only to Government Servants holding non-pensionable post. He was allotted Account No. U.P./772/23 under that Scheme. Not only this, after his retirement he has also withdrawn his share as also that of the Government's contribution. 13. It is indisputable that having taken full advantage and benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, he cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that he should also be given pension. In fact, he is estopped from claiming that he was holding a pensionable post. 14. 13. It is indisputable that having taken full advantage and benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, he cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that he should also be given pension. In fact, he is estopped from claiming that he was holding a pensionable post. 14. For the petitioner, however, it was urged that the aforesaid G.O. dated 28-10-1960 has no application to the petitioner's case inasmuch as the petitioner had already been confirmed prior to the coming into force of that G.O. Elaborating the submission, Sri S. N. Mishra, contended that the G.O. was prospective in its operation and consequently it could not cover the cases of those employees of the Roadways who were already confirmed. It was further urged that the other two G.Os. dated 16-9-1960 and 8-9-1961 were also prospective in effect. 15. I am unable-to agree. The preamble to the G.O. dated 28-10-1960 extracted hereinabove states that the question of declaring permanent posts in the Roadways Organisation as pensionable was under the consideration of the Government for some time past. After stating this, the G.O. declares that only three categories of permanent gazetted and non-gazetted incumbents shall be entitled to the Contributory Provident Fund cum Pension Rules. These categories have been specified in Cls. 'a', `b' and `c' of the G.O. dated 28-10-1960. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong, to any of these. Cl. 2 of this G.O. then goes on to say that the rest of the permanent non-gazetted roadways employees both in the traffic and engineering sections of the Roadways would be treated as non-pensionable but they will be eligible or Provident Fund Benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act. 16. There is nothing in the language of the G.O. or its contents which may indicate that the G.O. was not intended to cover the cases of the employees of the roadways who were already confirmed against permanent gazetted and non-gazetted posts in the Roadways. Further, it is apparent from the preamble that the matter pertaining to the issue whether the officers and employees of the Roadways Organisation should be admitted to pensionary benefits was under consideration for some time. Eventually the Government took policy decision reflected by the G.Os. mentioned above that the incumbents of the three categories of permanent gazetted and non-gazetted posts of the Roadways should be entitled to pension. Eventually the Government took policy decision reflected by the G.Os. mentioned above that the incumbents of the three categories of permanent gazetted and non-gazetted posts of the Roadways should be entitled to pension. These, as mentioned above, have been specified in clauses `a', `b' and `c' above. 17. Another policy decision apparent from clause 2' of the G.O. was that the rest of permanent non-gazetted roadways employees shall not be entitled to the pensionary benefits, instead they shall be eligible for Provident Fund benefits only. Before this G.O., the position as regards the eligibility of the incumbents of the permanent gazetted and non-gazetted post in the Roadways Department for pensionary benefits had not been spelled out by the Government. Consequently, it is difficult to accept the contention that the G.O. dated 28-10-1960 was prospective in operation. To my mind, the G.O. was applicable to all the employees existing as well as future in the Roadways Organisation. 18. Coming to the G.O. dated 16-9-1960, it is apparent that the same deals generally with the terms and conditions of service of the roadways employees. Before this G.O. the conditions of service of the employees of this Department were governed by various rules and standing orders of the Government applicable to other temporary Government Department made or framed by the Government under its Rule-making power. The G.O. states that in view of the special service conditions of the employees of the Roadways, it is necessary to evolve a new set of service conditions for the employees compatible with the nature of work and functions of the Organisation. The. Government. therefore, in supersession of the previous Standing Orders and Rules evolved a new set of rules by this G.O. prescribing the terms and conditions of the employees of the Roadways. Exception was, however, made in respect of the three categories of the employees mentioned in clauses `a', `b' and `c' in the G.O. Significantly these are the same categories which have' been specified in the G.O. dated 28-10-1960. 19. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the above G.O. was concerned primarily with the service conditions of the employees of the U.P. Government Roadways generally, leaving the question of admissibility to pensionary benefit to be determined later by the Government. The policy relating to payment of pensionary benefits to the employees of this Organisation was, as noticed above, spelled out later vide G.O. dated 28-10-1986. The policy relating to payment of pensionary benefits to the employees of this Organisation was, as noticed above, spelled out later vide G.O. dated 28-10-1986. The G.O. dated 16-9-1960, therefore, lends no assistance to the petitioner. 20. Considerable emphasis was, however, laid by Sri S. N. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the protective clause in the Government Order dated 16-9-1960 to the effect : "the status of the roadways employees already made permanent remain unaffected." I have already explained the scope and effect of the G.O. dated 16-9-1960 and have found that the same does not support the petitioner. The clause pointed out by the learned counsel merely deals with the terms and conditions of the employees of the Roadways generally who had already been confirmed. This clause has no bearing on the admissibility of pension to the employees which is a matter governed primarily by the G.O. dated 28-10-1960. 21. So far as the G.O. dated 8-9-1961 is concerned, the same does not, in my opinion, support the petitioner's contention at all. On the contrary, clause 2 of the same lays down that as provided in clause 2 of the G.O. dated 9-10-1960, the permanent Roadways employees mentioned in the G.O. dated 8-9-1961 would be treated as non-pensionable and they will be liable for Provident Fund benefits of the Employees Provident Fund Act. 22. My conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner was not holding any pensionable post at the time of his retirement from service. He was, as found above, entitled only to the benefits accruing under the Employees Provident Fund Act. Indeed, he availed himself entitled to those benefits. He was allotted an account number under that scheme and on his retirement withdrew his own contributions to his Provident Fund again as well as that the Government. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. But I make no order as to costs.