BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 21. 11. 1997 and 22. 2. 1996, enclosed as Annexures-2 and 2a. Further, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the period of her two years service after attaining the age of 58 years as extension of service instead of reappointment. The petitioner has also staked her claim for grant of L. T. grade, promotional scale, payment of her salary in the revised pay-scale and revised pension accordingly. ( 2 ) IN brief, the petitioners case is that she was initially appointed on 27. 9. 1968 on the post of head Mistress in Rajkiya Kanya Junior High School, Baldev, district Mathura and she joined the said post. However, her services were terminated on 31. 10. 1968. She was again appointed as assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Kanya Higher Secondary School, Tugana, district Meerut and worked there from 12. 10. 1970 to 17. 3. 1971. She was again appointed on 11. 9. 1971 in the government Girls Higher Secondary School, Lal Garhi, district Etah and vide order dated 20. 7. 1972, she was transferred to Jalesar in Government Girls Higher Secondary School in the same district. Barely a month after, she was transferred to Damanpur, district Mirzapur and from damanpur to Mahoba where her services were terminated on 14. 5. 1973 without any reason in an arbitrary and illegal manner. She was again appointed as assistant teacher in the Government girls Inter College, Moradabad, where she worked from 9. 11. 1974 to 25. 5. 1975. Feeling aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal acts of the departmental authorities, the petitioner remained on hunger strike at different intervals during 4. 1. 1982 to 27. 2. 1996 at different places, i. e. , mathura, Agra and Lucknow. She was then reinstated in compliance of the order of His excellency the Governor of U. P. vide order dated 27. 2. 1996. In compliance of the above order, the petitioner was reappointed on the post of assistant teacher in Government Girls Inter college, Baldev, district Mathura. She discharged her duty from 1. 3. 1996 to 9. 7. 1997. She was then reinstated in compliance of the order of His excellency the Governor of U. P. vide order dated 27. 2. 1996. In compliance of the above order, the petitioner was reappointed on the post of assistant teacher in Government Girls Inter college, Baldev, district Mathura. She discharged her duty from 1. 3. 1996 to 9. 7. 1997. As a matter of fact, she was given extension of service for two years after her age of superannuation but the Director of Education wrongly issued the order of reappointment. On a representation by the petitioner, the Director sought for a clarification from the Principal Secretary, Education but no action was taken. However, the Director of Education wrote a letter dated 4. 1. 1997 to the principal. Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Baldev, district Mathura, directing him to comply with the order of the Government and allow her to join duty. But, since her appointment was kept confined up to her having attained the age of 60 years, the benefit of academic session beyond that period was not extended to her. Thereafter, the petitioner went from pillar to post asking for her dues amounting to Rs. 4,17,039 towards her salary in arrears but the relevant authorities under a game plan went on exchanging letters evading payment of her dues. She then served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but it also did not fetch any result. She was also denied her induction into L. T. grade. Neither her salary was fixed in that grade nor it was revised after the new pay-scales being made applicable. She was, however, paid her salary from March, 1996 to February, 1997. She also received a cheque of Rs. 3. 25. 000 under the orders of the Governor of U. P. but the details of this amount were not given. Despite her repeated requests, her services from the year 1968 till she superannuated have not been computed for the purpose of pension. It is under these circumstances that she was obliged to file this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties filed their reply through the counter-affidavit of Sri Kunwar Ji Lal, district Inspector of Schools, Mathura. Despite her repeated requests, her services from the year 1968 till she superannuated have not been computed for the purpose of pension. It is under these circumstances that she was obliged to file this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties filed their reply through the counter-affidavit of Sri Kunwar Ji Lal, district Inspector of Schools, Mathura. He admitted that under the orders of the Governor, issued by His Excellency on the humanitarian ground, the petitioner was allowed under special circumstances reappointment for a period of two years after she attained 58 years of age. In compliance of such orders of reappointment, the petitioner served Rajkiya Kanya Uchchatar madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Baldev, district Mathura from 1. 3. 1996 to 30. 6. 1997 and she was paid her salary for the said period. Elsewhere during her teaching career, she worked at different places during the period as indicated below : from 27. 6. 1968 to 27. 11. 1968 Rajklya Kanya Junior High School. Baldev, district 1 Mathura. 13. 9. 1971 to 8. 7. 1972 Rajkiya Kanya Uchchalar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. 2 Lalgarhi, Etah. 3. 16. 9. 1972 to 14. 5. 1973 R a j k i y a Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. Hamirpur, 4. 1. 3. 1996 to 30. 6. 1997 Rajklya Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. Baldev. district Mathura (Deputy Directors camp ). ( 4 ) EXCEPT above, there is no record of her service in her service book and, therefore, her claim for salary for the period other than the duration disclosed above in the chart is unwanted and uncalled for. The Government on having scrutinised the petitioners claims had taken a decision that she did not perform her duty during the periods of which she claims remuneration and, therefore, it was not possible to treat her in service and pay the arrears of salary. As regards payment of Rs. 3,25,000, it has been asserted that the said ex gratia payment was made with a view to help the petitioner on humanitarian ground without accepting her claim for arrears of salary. As regards preparation of bill for Rs. 4,17,039. 80 submitted to the Accountant General by the Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. As regards payment of Rs. 3,25,000, it has been asserted that the said ex gratia payment was made with a view to help the petitioner on humanitarian ground without accepting her claim for arrears of salary. As regards preparation of bill for Rs. 4,17,039. 80 submitted to the Accountant General by the Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. Baldev, Mathura, it has been alleged that the preparation of such a bill and submission thereof was irregular and contrary to rules and it was on account of its having been wrongly prepared that the Accountant General returned and rejected it. In view of these averments. Mr. Kunwar Ji Lal, District Inspector of schools, Mathura, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE magna carta of the petitioners claim is an office note dated 27. 2. 1996, written by the governors Secretary. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi to the Principal Secretary, Education. It may be relevant to mention here that at that juncture of time, it was the Governors Rule in the State and, therefore, the Governor was authorised to issue directions/orders. A perusal of the said office note would reveal that the petitioner was given reappointment after 58 years of her age and the tenure of reappointment was kept confined to her having attained the age of sixty years. Her date of birth as recorded in the service record is 7. 1. 1937. She was allowed to work upto the age of sixty years. The petitioners claim that she should have been continued upto 26. 2. 1998 is absolutely fallacious in view of the clear terms recited in the aforesaid office note. As per those terms, she could not have continued in service beyond the age of sixty years. However, she carried on upto the end of academic session. Extension of two years term was subject to her being sixty years of age. In other words, her tenure of reappointment was confined to the point of time she could have attained the 60 years of age. Even in the letters and office note. Annexures-2 and 2a, it was made absolutely clear that the petitioners reappointment will be confined to her age of sixty years. In other words, her tenure of reappointment was confined to the point of time she could have attained the 60 years of age. Even in the letters and office note. Annexures-2 and 2a, it was made absolutely clear that the petitioners reappointment will be confined to her age of sixty years. Having regard to these clear terms of reappointment, I am not inclined to uphold her contention that she would have legally continued in service even beyond her becoming sixty years of age: Accordingly, her contention is rejected and, therefore, it is held that she would not get any salary beyond the date she retired. It is further significant to note that the authorities issued reappointment repeatedly and candidly made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any pensionary benefit consequential to her reappointment. Therefore, the question of either computing the period of reappointment or adding the said period to her total of service record does not arise at all and it can also conveniently be observed from a perusal of the record that she was not entitled for any pension merely because she was granted reappointment by the Governor. ( 6 ) IT does not stand to reason as to why and under what circumstances, the petitioner should be allowed to get salary or arrears thereof for the period she was not in service. She was terminated more than once and the breaks in service were never regularised by any authority. The first termination of the petitioners service was ordered on the ground of disobedience in March, 1971. It appears from the record that she was given a chance to improve her style of functioning but in less than two years after her second appointment she was again terminated on the ground of misbehaviour. The writ petition she filed challenging her termination was dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition she preferred was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. The writ petition she filed challenging her termination was dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition she preferred was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. However, no dismissal-whether from her service or her petition discouraged her from seeking reappointment on humanitarian ground and whosoever the authority was, none lagged behind to be swayed by the so-called humanitarian grounds and, therefore, all the authorities at one or the other juncture of time right from the District Inspector of Schools upto His Excellency the governor - kept on obliging her forgetting the Rules of discipline, good conduct and dedication of service required in public spheres. Again she was appointed in the year 1994 as a teacher but, as the English saying is that old habits die hard, she was again dismissed from service in a period of less than 8 months on the ground of mis-conduct. She got some relief from the Services tribunal. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari again appointed her in Primary School, Pagom, Mathura, on the basis of the old and beaten humanitarian ground but she could not continue long and was again terminated in January, 1982, on account of her continuous absence from duty. The game of seesaw went on and now the Commissioner, Agra Division, came to his rescue and it was on his recommendation that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari got her appointed but she did not join the office under protest. She adopted the dharna policy and selected a place in front of Vidhan Sabha and was on protest for nearly 14 years. It is agonising to learn that she was allowed to misuse her position. Any way, as neither her termination nor her appointment or reappointment is the issue before this Court, it is not necessary to make further observations on the repeated dismissal and repeated reappointment orders. What is relevant to note is that the petitioner was not in continuous service for a minimum period of 10 years and, therefore, she is not competent and eligible to stake her claim for pension. The petitioner who herself argued before the Court in addition to the submissions made by her counsel could not point out any Rule under which she can be said to be authorised to claim pension. The petitioner who herself argued before the Court in addition to the submissions made by her counsel could not point out any Rule under which she can be said to be authorised to claim pension. She has not been able to produce before the Court any order of the Government on the authority of which the breaks in her service could be ignored and thereby she would have been treated to be in service. She repeatedly and so her counsel insisted on the recitals appearing in the official communication dated 27. 2. 1996 of the Secretary of the Governor to the Principal Secretary, Education. A careful perusal of this office note shows that there are conflicting observations in it. For a better understanding, this office note may be quoted as below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . At one place, as is evident from above, the note indicates that she would not be entitled to any pension but if a harmonious interpretation is drawn, it appears to indicate that the period of reappointment of two years will not be counted for the pension. It was then mentioned towards the end of the office note that whatever dues and pension were to be sanctioned, payment of the same should be considered only after she attains the age of sixty years. This observation was certainly subject to the Rules. It is not mentioned in this official communication that payment of the dues and the pension shall be made to the petitioner by ignoring the prescribed Rules or making a relaxation therein. This Court had the opportunity of going through the Secretariat file pertaining to the petitioner but could not come across any order of the Governor authorising the petitioner to have her pension sanctioned against the Rules. The ex gratia payment of Rs. 3,25,000 can be said to be nothing but a populist approach of the Government, and the Court duly established by law rarely approves such illegal gestures. However, this Court refrains from making any further comment as the said matter is not in issue. The payment of the aforesaid sum with an observation that she would get her dues and pension as per record of her service does not entitle or authorise her either to get arrears of her salary in the revised scale or the pension. However, this Court refrains from making any further comment as the said matter is not in issue. The payment of the aforesaid sum with an observation that she would get her dues and pension as per record of her service does not entitle or authorise her either to get arrears of her salary in the revised scale or the pension. The said payment, as observed above, was nothing but a move proposed to derive public or political advantage. Such overtures, being contrary to settled norms, practice and Rules, do not have the approval of law and the Courts. Neither the Government nor the petitioner was able to bring before the Court any other exemplar of this kind. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the citation in Ishwar Lal Girdharlal Joshi etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1968 SC 870 , argued that even oral instructions regarding payment of pension and dues and even simple instructions of the Governor regarding payment of pension and dues can confer on the Secretary the power to grant the sanction. There is no similarity of the facts of this case and the one referred to above. That was a case of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the principle of law laid down in that decision is not applicable to the case in hand. For the same reason, the citations, in State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 and Messers Pioneer Motors Limited, Tirunelveli and Ors v. O. M. A. Majeed, Mirania Motor Service, Tirunelveli and Ors, AIR 1957 Mad 48 , are of no help to the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE crux of the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension, payment of salary including revised salary in the revised pay-scale for the period she was not in service, promotion to L. T. grade and benefit of her reappointment after she attained 58 years of age. As a result, the writ petition for the writs of certiorari and mandamus, as prayed by her, deserves to be dismissed. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.