JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that his services from 1954 to 1961 are not being considered for the purposes of counting the qualifying service for computing pension. In this relation he is placing reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1998 (3) WLC (Raj.) 216 and has canvassed that it has been ordered by this Court that an employee appointed on daily wages towards anticipated work be deemed eligible to treat the services rendered by him as a daily wager for computing the qualifying service for pension. 2. This proposition of law has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the respondents will compute the qualifying service by treating the services rendered by the petitioner from 1954 to 1961 for pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stressed that he is entitled to leave encashment also and in this regard he places reliance on a decision of this Court given in the case of Mathura Prasad & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . 4. By this judgment, this Court has set-aside the order dated 21.1.1981 whereby the benefit of leave and salary have been denied to the daily wages employees. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that vide letter Annex. 7 it has been informed that the leave encashment is not applicable to the workmen governed by Work-charge Service Rules under Government order dated 17.1.1991. This order has not been challenged in this writ petition and unless this order is challenged nothing can be done in this regard. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in connection with leave encashment. Since the State Government order dated 17.1.1991 is not subject matter of this writ petition, Annex. 7 cannot be interfered with and since Annex. 7 has not been challenged on the basis that order dated 17.1.1991 is wrong in law, no interference is called for. However, the petitioner may pursue his remedy before the State Government in this connection. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.writ petition disposed of accordingly. *******