JUDGMENT - S.D. GUNDEWAR, J.:---This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28-9-1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 565 of 1988, whereby the Industrial Court, Amravati, has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 14-9-1988 passed by the Desk Officer, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, whereby the request made by the petitioner for condonation of break in his service for the period from 25-2-1970 to 17-9-1972, came to be rejected. 2. A few facts, insofar as they are relevant, may be stated as below : The petitioner worked as a Field worker under Fileria Control Unit of State of Maharashtra from 1-8-1959 to 30-4-1964. Thereafter from 2-5-1964 to 24-9-1970, he worked as a Junior Mechanic (Class III Cadre) in Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. However, on 24-9-1970, his services came to be terminated for want of vacancy. Thereafter on 25-9-1970, he was selected as Senior Mechanic by the Divisional Selection Board, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and was on wait-list and was ultimately appointed as such vide order dated 4-8-1972. He joined as a Senior Mechanic, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, on 18-9-1972 and retired on 30-9-1990 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. Heard Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri N.P. Dhote, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. 4. It is contended by Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the break in service of the petitioner from 25-9-1970 to 17-9-1972 needs to be condoned for the purpose of computation of the pension of the petitioner. In support of his submission, Shri Mohta has placed reliance on certain Government Resolutions and the orders passed by the Government. 4. It is contended by Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the break in service of the petitioner from 25-9-1970 to 17-9-1972 needs to be condoned for the purpose of computation of the pension of the petitioner. In support of his submission, Shri Mohta has placed reliance on certain Government Resolutions and the orders passed by the Government. It is further submitted by Shri Mohta that admittedly, in the case at hand, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 24-9-1970 for want of vacancy and, therefore, in view of a Note below Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1982"), the aforesaid break in service of the petitioner requires to be condoned because it has been specifically provided in the said Note that the benefit of condonation of break should be allowed only in those cases in which break have occurred on account of discharge from service for want of post and not on any other ground e.g. voluntary resignation etc. and in computing the period of break, the terminal leave availed of by the persons concerned, should also be taken into account. According to Shri Mohta, the learned Member of the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint though the Government Resolutions and the orders passed by the Government in this regard were brought to his notice and, therefore, the I.O. being erroneous, needs to be quashed and set aside. 5. Smt. Wandile, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, supported the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court and submitted that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner's complaint by considering the provisions of Rule 48 of the Rules 1982 and, therefore, the impugned order being just and proper needs no interference by this Court. According to her, Rule 33 (Note) is applicable only to the ex-employees of Civil Supplies Department, who were re-employed after the break and, therefore, the petitioner, who is not a former employee of Civil Supplies Department nor re-employed in State Government after the break, is not entitled to get the benefit of the said provision. 6. Shri Dhote, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 also supported the impugned order and submitted that the said order being legal and proper, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 7. 6. Shri Dhote, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 also supported the impugned order and submitted that the said order being legal and proper, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions raised by the respective Counsel, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of the Rules 1982, which are applicable to this case. Rule 48. Condonation of Interruption in service (1) The appointing authority may, by order, condone interruption in the service of a Government servant. Provided that :- (a) the interruptions have been caused by reasons beyond the control of the Government servant; (b) the total service pensionary benefit in respect of which will be lost, is not less than five years duration, excluding one or two interruptions, if any; and (c) the interruption including two or more interruptions if any, does not exceed one year. Rule 165. Repeal and Saving. (1) On the commencement of these Rules, every rule, regulation or order including Government Resolutions (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the old rule) in force immediately before such commencement shall, in so far as it provides for any of the matters contained in these rules, cease to operate. 8. Rule 48(1)(c) of Rules 1982, in clear terms provides that the appointing authority may, by order, condone interruptions in the service of a Government servant; provided that the interruptions including two or more interruptions if any, does not exceed one year. 9. In the case at hand, admittedly, the break in service of the petitioner is from 25-9-1970 to 17-9-1972 i.e. for a period exceeding one year. 10. Now, it is contended by Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner that though Rule 165 of the Rules 1982 provides that on commencement of these rules, every rule, regulation or order including Government Resolutions in force immediately before such commencement shall, in so far as it provides for any of the matters contained in these Rules, cease to operate yet, the State Government by virtue of certain Government Resolutions and orders condoned the break and, therefore, the petitioner's case may also be considered sympathetically only for the purpose of computation of his pension. For this, he placed reliance on certain Government Resolutions and Government orders filled at Annexures I, J, K, L, O, P, Q R. 11. For this, he placed reliance on certain Government Resolutions and Government orders filled at Annexures I, J, K, L, O, P, Q R. 11. I have carefully gone through all these Government Resolution and orders passed by the Government, with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the same, in my opinion, these Government Resolutions or orders do not help the petitioner for condonation of break in his services as alleged. 12. I would now like to consider the aforesaid Government Resolutions and orders relied upon by the petitioner. 13. Government Resolutions filed at Annexures I, J K dated 23-4-1968, 2-4-1971 24-11-1981 respectively being the Government Resolutions issued prior to the commencement of Rules 1982, shall cease to operate in view of the provisions of Rule 165 of the said Rules and, therefore , in my opinion, they are of no avail to the petitioner in getting condoned the aforesaid break in his service. 14. Government Resolutions dated 8-9-1982 (Annexure 0') was issued under Family Welfare Programme for extending benefit to retrenched staff. It is regarding the grant of increment only to the employees of erstwhile State Family Planning Organisation, who were retrenched in 1967 subsequently absorbed in other posts, whereas Government order dated 21-5-1985 (annexure 'P') simply makes mention that the earlier Government Resolutions dated 8-9-1982 (annexure "0") is applicable to all the Zilla Parishad employees and therefore, in my opinion, the said Government Resolution and order do not help the petitioner in any way in respect of condonation of break in his service. 15. Annexure "Q" is an order passed by the Zilla Parishad, Amravati, on 16-9-1994. By the said order, a break in service of one Shri M.K. Shinde, who was removed and then reinstated was condoned. Moreover, in that case, the period of break condoned was less than one year i.e. 11 months, 23 days only. Further, the said order pertains to an employee, who was reinstated and, therefore, in my opinion, the said order is neither applicable to the facts of the present case nor it helps the petitioner in any way. 16. Annexure "R" is a Government Order dated 5-7-1996. It pertains to the condonation of break in service of one Shri U.V. Bharaswadkar, who was appointed as Sanitary Inspector attached to Health Services, Akola circle. 16. Annexure "R" is a Government Order dated 5-7-1996. It pertains to the condonation of break in service of one Shri U.V. Bharaswadkar, who was appointed as Sanitary Inspector attached to Health Services, Akola circle. In that case, there were in all three interruptions in service of the said employee namely Shri Bharaswadkar. By the said order, two interruptions, the total period of which did not exceed one year, were condoned. The said order clearly speaks that a break in service to the extent of only 269 days was condoned. Further, the said order appears to have been passed by taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 48(3) of the Rules 1982. Admittedly, in the case at hand, there is only one interruption in service of the petitioner and total period of break exceeds one year and, therefore, in my opinion, the said Government order is also of no assistance to the petitioner in getting condoned the aforesaid break in his service. 17. So far as Government Resolution dated 24-4-1971 (annexure "T") is concerned, it is no doubt true that though this Government Resolution was issued prior to commencement of the Rules 1982, it was referred in Government Resolution dated 8-9-1982 (annexure "Q") and Government Order dated 21-5-1985 (annexure "P"). In this Government Resolution dated 24-4-1971, it has been specifically mentioned, with regard to the grant of pension, that the benefit of past service should be allowed in the case of those employees, for the purpose of pension, by condoning breaks in their service up to three years on the analogy of the provisions in the Note below Rule 43-A in the Revised Pension Rules, 1950. Admittedly, Note below Rule 43-A of Revised Pension Rules, 1950, is analogus to Note below Rule 33 of the Rules 1982. Rule 43-A(Note) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950, was made applicable to the retrenched employees in the Civil Supplies Department. The said rule was also made applicable to the retrenched employees of the Family Planning Department and that of Agricultural Department who were subsequently absorbed in other posts. 18. Rule 43-A(Note) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1950, was made applicable to the retrenched employees in the Civil Supplies Department. The said rule was also made applicable to the retrenched employees of the Family Planning Department and that of Agricultural Department who were subsequently absorbed in other posts. 18. Now, much is made of Note below Rule 33 of the Rules 1982 and it was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per this Note, benefit of condonation of break should be allowed in cases in which break have occurred on account of discharge from service for want of post and as in the case at hand the services of the petitioner were terminated for want of vacancy, the said benefit may be extended to him. In order to appreciate the above contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 33 of the Rules 1982 and Note below it. Rule 33 of the Rules 1982 provides that : A Government servant who holds a permanent post substantively or holds a lien or a suspended lien or a certificate of permanency on the date of his retirement, the entire temporary or officiating service rendered under Government followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as service qualifying for pension except the service rendered against one of the posts mentioned in Rule 57. Note below to the said Rule provides as below: Note: "The benefit of above rule should also be extended to Government servants who have rendered service in temporary posts in the former Civil Supplies department including those re-employed after the break, provided they agree to refund the terminal gratuity, if any, received by them on their retrenchment from the former Civil Supplies Department ( in order to avoid hardship, the gratuity may be refunded in monthly instalments not exceeding twenty). Competent authorities are authorized to condone where necessary, breaks not exceeding three years. In cases where break exists, the terminal gratuity referred to above should be refunded within three months from the date of order of the competent authority condoning the break and the right to count the service under above rule does not accrue until the gratuity is wholly refunded. In cases where break exists, the terminal gratuity referred to above should be refunded within three months from the date of order of the competent authority condoning the break and the right to count the service under above rule does not accrue until the gratuity is wholly refunded. The condonation should be postponed until the Ex-civil Supplies Department personnel actually pass the examination, if any, required for confirmation and are actually confirmed. The benefit of condonation of break should be allowed only in those cases in which break have occurred on account of discharge from service for want of post and not on any other ground e.g. voluntary resignation etc. and in computing the period of break, the terminal leave availed of by the persons concerned, should also be taken into account. The leave salary is not, however, refundable. 19. A Note below Rule 33 of the Rules 1982, thus provides that the benefit of Rule 33 should also be extended to Government servants, who have rendered service in temporary posts in the former civil supplies department, including those re-employed after the break, provided they agree to refund the terminal gratuity, if any, received by them on their retrenchment from the former Civil Supplies Department. It further provides that the benefit of condonation of break should be allowed only in those cases where the break occurred on account of discharge from service for want of post and not on any other ground e.g. voluntary resignation etc. 20. A plain reading of Rule 33 and Note below it clearly go to show that the said provisions are applicable to the former employees of Civil Supplies Department including those re-employed after the break and as admittedly the petitioner does not fall under the said category, in my opinion, Note below Rule 33 of the Rules, 1982 , does not help in getting the break in his service condoned. 21. In the context of the above referred facts, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the total period of interruptions exceeds one year, the break in the service of the petitioner needs to be condoned, cannot be accepted. In view of this, in my opinion, the learned member of the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 22. In view of this, in my opinion, the learned member of the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 22. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner must fail and the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, in my opinion, being just and proper, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 23. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Writ petition dismissed. -----