Short Note The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the Order Annexure A-5 dated 26.8.1993. by which the Government in the Finance Department has informed the petitioner that since he had resigned from the service, he was not entitled to any pension under the 'M.P. Pension Rules, 1951'. As per the case of the petitioner the petitioner was appointed in the establishment of the District Judge, Jhabua on 15.7.1947 and later in the establishment of the District Judge, Ratlam. On account of certain personal reasons, the petitioner had tendered resignation which was accepted by the respondent-State by Annexure A-2 dated 18.11.1967. The New Pension Rules were amended on 28.4.1972 and Rule 2(2) was substituted to permit a Government servant to retire from service at any time after completing 20 years' qualifying superior service by giving notice in writing to the appointing authority at least 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire. A like option was made available to the Government in case of a Government servant after completing of his 30 years qualifying superior service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although this rule had been introduced on 28.4.1972 when the petitioner was no longer in service, the provision should be treated as retroactive and the resignation of the petitioner which was accepted by Annexure A-2 dated 18.11.1967 should be treated as a notice for voluntarily retirement and the petitioner should be extended the benefit of pension under the said M.P. New Pension Rules, 1951, as applicable in the case of a person who voluntary retires under the said Rule 2(2). Learned counsel has also invited attention to the decision of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) in support of his contention that pension is nothing but a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered with the result, the service of the petitioner should not go unrewarded merely because at the time when the petitioner had resigned, the Rule permitting voluntary retirement was not there. Rule 2(2) as substituted by notification dated 10.3.1972 published in the M.P. gazette dated 28.4.1972 reads as follows: "R. 2(2) : A Government servant may retire from service at any time after completing 20 year's qualifying superior service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least 3 months before the date on which he wished to retire. Government may also require Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 30 years qualifying superior service provided that the appointing authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire." The above rule contemplates 20 years qualifying superior service as minimum to enable a Government servant to seek voluntary retirement by giving 3 months notice. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for the method of computation of the Qualifying Superior Service and lays down that half the continuous temporary service under the State Government rendered after a Government servant has attained the minimum qualifying age, if followed by confirmation in a permanent pensionable post, will count as 'qualifying service' for gratuity and pension. The Service Profile of the petitioner is available in the service book of which a copy has been submitted as Annexure A-1. It appears from the entries made in the service book that the petitioner had continued from 15.7.1947 up to 3.11.1949 as a temporary Government servant and perhaps thereafter, also for some time. If the service of the petitioner is calculated in the manner as provided by Rule 6 for counting qualifying superior service, it is clear that the petitioner even on the date of the order Annexure A-2 had not completed 20 years' service in order to become eligible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had completed 20 years' qualifying superior service in accordance with Rule 6 of the said Pension Rules on the date his resignation was accepted, the question that the rule is retroactive or retrospective is merely academic in the case of the petitioner as in either case, the petitioner does not become entitled to any advantage there under. The question being academic, need no determination in this petition. The question being academic, need no determination in this petition. In the result, this petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit, If any be refunded to the petitioner.