B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 16-2-1999 passed in o. A. No. 1130 of 1997 on the file of Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, whereby the learned Central administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short CAT) allowed the application filed by Mr. A. R. Naidu and directed the writ petitioner to allow the benefit of added years of service in accordance with law to the applicant. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner herein is respondent-1 in O. A. No. 1130 of 1997. The said O. A. is filed by Mr. A. R. Naidu (Respondent-2 herein) seeking the following relief:"in view of the above, the applicant prays that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to add qualifying service to his 30 years, 4 months and 12 days to make full qualifying service of 33 years to grant him full pension and other benefits which are consequential and incidental to the same besides granting other appropriate benefits. " ( 3 ) HIS case in brief is: He joined in government of Madhya Pradesh Service on 13-9-1960 as a Lecturer in the Reorientation training Centre. On being selected by the union Public Service Commission he joined as Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 3-1-1966 in the Chief Labour commissioner s organization in the ministry of Labour, Government of India. He got promoted as Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) w. e. f. 11-9-1973. While working as Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) he went on deputation as Welfare Commissioner, Mica mines Welfare Organization, Andhra pradesh, Kalichedu from 29-5-1975 to 3-8-1977 and as Assistant Welfare commissioner from 16-8-1977 to 22-4-1983 and as Deputy Welfare Commissioner from 27-4-1983 to 30-11-1983 and lastly as Welfare commissioner (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil nadu and Pondicherry) with headquarters at Hyderabad from 29-12-1983 to 2-2-1987. While so, the Central Labour Service (CLS in short) was constituted and thereby integrating the cadres of Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Labour Officer (Central Pool) and Assistant Welfare commissioner (Central ). Prior to the constitution of CLS the above three categories of the officers were recruited under respective recruitment rules. After formation of CLS, all the above three posts have been equated as per proviso to Rule 9 of CLS Rules, 1987 and all the three posts are interchangeable with one another under proviso to Rule 4 of the CLS Rules, 1987. After formation of CLS, all the above three posts have been equated as per proviso to Rule 9 of CLS Rules, 1987 and all the three posts are interchangeable with one another under proviso to Rule 4 of the CLS Rules, 1987. Much before his appointment as Assistant labour Commissioner (Central) on 11-9-1973 Union Public Service Commission selected him and offered the post of Labour officer (Central Pool ). The offer of appointment indicates that he was fully qualified and possessed relevant professional qualifications and experience to appoint him as Labour Officer (Central pool ). As per Rule 8 (2) of Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of Central civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) will be admissible to the Labour Officer (Central pool ). The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) issued clarification vide OM/a/38012/1/88 cls I, dated 29-5-1989 that the benefit of added years of service under rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 would be continued to be admissible to the Labour Officer (Central pool) of CLS who are appointed to the service in accordance with the then Labour officer (Recruitment and Conditions of service) Rules, 1951. In view of the office memo referred to above, the Lab our officers (Central Pool) are continuing to get the benefit of added years of service as per rule 30 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in spite of the fact that as per Rule 17 of CLS rules, 1987, Labour Officer (Central Pool) recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1951 had been repealed. He retired from service as Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-1-1991. As all the three posts, viz. Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Labour Officer (Central Pool) and Assistant Welfare commissioner have been equated and are interchangeable, he is entitled to the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 (1 ). He submitted representation dt. 18-9-1996 and his representation remained un-replied. The non-reply or silence of the respondent authorities has resulted in the denial of the benefit under Rule 30 (1) of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 leading to unfavourable decision in violation of the principles of equal protection under law. He submitted representation dt. 18-9-1996 and his representation remained un-replied. The non-reply or silence of the respondent authorities has resulted in the denial of the benefit under Rule 30 (1) of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 leading to unfavourable decision in violation of the principles of equal protection under law. Hence, he filed o. A. No. 1130 of 1997 praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of added years of service for the purpose of pension as per Rule 30 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. ( 4 ) A reply statement has been filed by the respondents in O. A. No. 1130 of 1997. The main contention of the respondents was that the applicant was recruited to a service earlier to the formation of CLS which does not provide for the added weightage of years for the purpose of pension and pensionery benefits. Since it was not there, the applicant cannot claim the same even though he was inducted into CLS. The CLS, 1987 does not provide for the added years of service for pension and pensionary benefits. Hence, he cannot get any relief of added years of service. The pension of added service shall be admissible only if the recruitment Rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this Rule. The recruitment rules for the post of Labour Enforcement officer (Central) and Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) and CLS Rules, 1987 do not provide any provision for the benefit of added years of service admissible under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and as such the officers who had subsequently become members of the central Labour Service as on the date of retirement are not entitled to the benefit of rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant was initially appointed as labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and subsequently promoted to the post of assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 11-9-1973. The recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) do not provide for the benefit of added years of service. The applicant was initially appointed as labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and subsequently promoted to the post of assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 11-9-1973. The recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) do not provide for the benefit of added years of service. In the judgment in o. A. No. 750 of 1995 C. C. S. Reddy v. Union of india and others the applicant therein worked as Labour Officer of CCS Grade-V from 1989 to 1992 and retired as Grade IV officer, whereas the applicant herein worked as assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) till his retirement. Hence, the case of the applicant herein is not on the same footing as that of C. C. S. Reddy. Availability of benefit of added years of service is dependent on the provision in recruitment rules. Since the recruitment Rules governing the appointment of the applicant do not provide added years of service, the application filed by him is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE learned Central Administrative tribunal by order dated 16-2-1999 allowed o. A. No. 1130 of 1997 and directed the respondents therein to allow the benefit of added years of service in accordance with law to the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the order the respondent therein filed this writ petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 is admissible to the Labour officers (Central pool ). It is further contended by him that Respondent-1 (sic. 2) (applicant) was recruited as Labour enforcement Officer (Central) and subsequently promoted as Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) and that as the recruitment Rules governing either of the posts did not provide the benefit of added years of service, he would be ineligible to claim the benefit of added years of service. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for Respondent-2 submitted that all the three posts viz. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), assistant Labour Officer (Central Pool) and assistant Welfare Commissioner had been equated and were interchangeable as per rules 4 and 9 of CLS Rules, 1987 and therefore Respondent-2 (applicant) was entitled to the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 (1 ). Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), assistant Labour Officer (Central Pool) and assistant Welfare Commissioner had been equated and were interchangeable as per rules 4 and 9 of CLS Rules, 1987 and therefore Respondent-2 (applicant) was entitled to the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 (1 ). It is also submitted by him that the Central Administrative tribunal considered the Recruitment Rules of all the three posts and also CLS (Rules), 1987 in extenso and held that Respondent-2 (applicant) was entitled to added years of service and therefore the order of CAT is not liable to b e interfered with in the writ petition. Much emphasis has been laid by him on the judgment of C. C. S. Reddy in o. A. No. 750/95 on the file of CAT wherein benefit of added years of service was allowed to C. C. S. Reddy who served as labour Officer after the merger of all the three posts. ( 8 ) WE have gone through the following recruitment Rules: (i) Labour Officers (Central Pool) recruitment and Conditions of service Rules, 1951. (ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Recruitment Rules, 1958. (iii) Central Labour Service Rules, 1987. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that Respondent-2 (applicant) was appointed as Assistant labour Commissioner (Central) under assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) recruitment Rules, 1958. These rules do not provide for the benefit of added years of service, whereas Labour Officers (Central pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1951 provide the benefit of added years of service. It has to be noted that the maximum age limit is thirty five years on the first day of January of the year in which commission invites applications for the appointment to the post of Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) be it by promotion or direct recruitment whereas in the case of labour Officers (Central Pool) the maximum age limit is fixed as forty years. Hence, an officer appointed to the post of labour Officer (Central Pool) earlier to the formation of CLS (Rules), 1987 may be more aged than any officer appointed as Assistant labour Commissioner. Therefore, a Labour officer (Central Pool) posted earlier to the framing of the CLS (Rules), 1987 will have much less qualifying service at the time of superannuation and that will reduce his pension and pensionary benefits considerably. Therefore, a Labour officer (Central Pool) posted earlier to the framing of the CLS (Rules), 1987 will have much less qualifying service at the time of superannuation and that will reduce his pension and pensionary benefits considerably. In view of the above, a provision has been made in the Recruitment rules of Labour Officers (Central Pool) recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1951 to give the added years of service under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 as can be seen from the sub-rule (2) of Rule 8. But, in the case of Labour enforcement officer and Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), the added years of service was nut given as they can be recruited at a much younger age and their qualifying service will also be much higher even if they are appointed as per maximum eligible age conditions. Respondent-2 (applicant) having been appointed to the post of Labour Enforcement Officer and assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), cannot claim the benefit of added years of service. After integration of all the three posts, office memo dated 27-5-1989 came to be issued to the effect that the Labour officers (Central Pool) are to be given the benefit of added years of service as they joined their service earlier to the formation of Central Labour Service Rules, 1987 where provision existed for grant of added years of service. We make it clear that the recruitment rules under which respondent-2 (applicant) appointed as labour Enforcement Officer and Assistant labour Commissioner (Central) do not provide for added years ot service. It is only the recruitment rules for the post of Labour officer (Central Pool) provide for added years of service. In the year 1987 all the three posts came to be integrated and common service rules came to be passed as Central service Rules. A benefit enjoyed by an officer cannot be refused to his detriment by the subsequent recruitment rules. In the case of Labour Officer (Central Pool), earlier to the formation of CLS Rules, 1987, the benefit of added years of service was available to them. That is the reason for issuing office memo dated 27-5-1989. A benefit enjoyed by an officer cannot be refused to his detriment by the subsequent recruitment rules. In the case of Labour Officer (Central Pool), earlier to the formation of CLS Rules, 1987, the benefit of added years of service was available to them. That is the reason for issuing office memo dated 27-5-1989. For better appreciation we may reproduce the Office memo dated 27-5-1989 and it is thus:"the undersigned is directed to say that the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 would be admissible to persons appointed to the service in accordance with the then Labour officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 in terms of Rule 8 (2) thereof which was inserted in the said Rules by way of amendment through this Ministry s notification dated 13-11-1980. " ( 10 ) IT is explicit from memo that the benefit of added years of service has been allowed to persons appointed to the service in accordance with the then Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 in terms of Rule 8 (2) thereof which was inserted in the said Rules by way of amendment dated 13-11-1980. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, Respondent-2 (applicant) was not appointed to the post under Labour Officers (Central Pool) recruitment and Conditions of Service rules, 1951. An argument has been advanced by the counsel for Respondent-2 (applicant) that he was fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Labour Officer (Central Pool) and indeed an offer was made to him for that post and, therefore, he was entitled to claim the benefit of added years of service. It is no doubt that Respondent-2 (applicant) was selected to the post of labour Officer (Central Pool), but he did not choose to join. Having failed to accept the post of Labour Officer (Central Pool) cannot now claim that he is entitled to claim the benefit of added years of service as provided in the rules governing recruitment of Labour officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and conditions of Service Rules, 1951. Having failed to accept the post of Labour Officer (Central Pool) cannot now claim that he is entitled to claim the benefit of added years of service as provided in the rules governing recruitment of Labour officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and conditions of Service Rules, 1951. It is useful to refer to Rule 30 (1) of CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 and it is thus:"addition to qualifying service in special circumstances: (1) A Government servant who retires from a service or post after the 31st march, 1960, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty-five years whichever is less, if the service or post to which the government servant is appointed is one: (a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential; and (b) to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are normally recruited: provided that this concession shall not be admissible to a Government servant unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits Government service is not less than ten years: provided further that this concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of this rule. " ( 12 ) HAVING perused the above rule the following position emerges. Respondent-2 (applicant) was recruited as Labour enforcement Officer and thereafter he was appointed as Assistant Labour commissioner. Regardless of the fact whether that appointment was by promotion or direct recruitment, in both the cases the recruitment rules do not provide for addition of added years of service to qualifying service, whereas the Labour officer (Central Pool) Recruitment and conditions of Service Rules, 1951 provide the benefit of added years of service. The relevant Rule 8 (2) reads as follows:"the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of CLS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be admissible to the Labour officers of the Central Pool. The relevant Rule 8 (2) reads as follows:"the benefit of added years of service under Rule 30 of CLS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be admissible to the Labour officers of the Central Pool. " ( 13 ) SINCE Respondent-2 (applicant) was neither recruited under Labour Officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1951 nor worked as Labour officer (Central Pool), he would not be eligible to claim the benefit of added years of service under Rule 8 (2) of the Labour officers (Central Pool) Recruitment and conditions Service Rules, 1951. The prerequisite to claim benefit of added years of service under the Rule 30 (2) is that the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post should contain a specific provision that the service or post is one which carries the benefit of Rule 8 (2 ). It has come on record that the service of respondent-2 (applicant) as Lecturer in reorientation Training Centre, Government of Madhya Pradesh has been counted for qualifying service and thus total qualifying service has come to thirty years four months and twelve days. ( 14 ) A question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Dharmalingam whether a person can claim both the benefits provided under provisos (2) and (3) of Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The second proviso is with regard to the added service in pursuance of the recruitment rules. The third proviso is with regard to the eligibility for counting their past service. Under the third proviso respondent-2 (applicant) s past service i. e. as Lecturer in Re-orientation Training centre, Government of Madhya Pradesh has been counted for the purpose of qualifying service with regard to the benefit provided under second proviso, of the recruitment rules in respect of the post to which respondent-2 (applicant) was appointed should have a provision entitling him for added service. Admittedly, the recruitment rules to the post for which Respondent-2 (applicant) was appointed do not provide for such added service. The CAT has totally misread second proviso to Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby erred in directing the writ petitioner to allow the benefit of added years of service to respondent-2 (applicant) as per law. ( 15 ) IN the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dt. The CAT has totally misread second proviso to Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby erred in directing the writ petitioner to allow the benefit of added years of service to respondent-2 (applicant) as per law. ( 15 ) IN the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dt. 16-2-1999 passed in O. A. No. 1130 of 1997 on the file of cat and the O. A. No. 1130 of 1997 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.