JUDGMENT M.M.S. BEDI, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated June 14,2005 (P-2), declining his prayer for grant of pension in respect of Government service allegedly rendered by him on a pensionable post. According to the impugned order the petitioner did not fulfil the basic requirement of having served for ten years on a pensionable post. 2. The petitioner was appointed on December 23, 1996, as Supervisor in Common Facility Workshop in the Industrial Department. On winding up of the said Common Facility Workshop, in 1976 he was transferred to Haryana Agro Industries Corporation and was ultimately absorbed in the said Corporation. The petitioner has sought release of pension on the basis of service rendered by him in the Industrial Department, prior to his joining of the Corporation, on the ground that similarly circumstanced employees have already been granted pension. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No. 5643 of 2005, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.4.2005, directing the respondents to take a decision on his pending representation by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9.6.2005 (P-I) has been passed. The claim made by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to complete 10 years of qualifying service on a pensionable post as he had served on the post of Supervisor, Common Facility Workshop in the Industries Department from 23.12.1966 to 14.1.1976. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: “Whereas Shri Erry did not complete 10 years qualified services on the date of termination from this department hence he is not entitled for pension as per rules 6.16 (1) of CSR Volume-II....... xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx It is further stated that Shri V.S. Erry had filed a CWP No. 6066/86 in Hon’ble Court on dated 25.11.87 for payment of gratuity and other benefits. The Hon’ble Court decided the case on dated 12.1.87 with the direction as under: “Written Statement has been filed today, which shall be taken on record. The main point taken in the written statement is that the petitioner has as yet not completed the requisite forms and other formalities for claiming gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall appear before the Director of Industries on 19th January, 1987. The main point taken in the written statement is that the petitioner has as yet not completed the requisite forms and other formalities for claiming gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall appear before the Director of Industries on 19th January, 1987. The office of the Director of Industries will then explain to the petitioner the deficiency which he is expected to make good and the petitioner shall make good the same either there and then or within a reasonable time. After the petitioner has made good the deficiency, the respondents shall take the necessary steps for getting the gratuity of the petitioner released within a fortnight thereafter.” Keeping in view the orders of Hon’ble Court, the gratuity of Rs. 2027.05 has already been released in favour of Shri V.S. Erry by the Accountant General, Haryana vide letter No. Pension-II/236-37/-2/87-88 dated 15.4.87. In view of the advice of the State Government, representations submitted by Shri V.S. Erry and orders of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5643 of 2005, it is observed that as the pensionery benefits admissible to Sh. V.S. Erry have already been paid to him as amount of Rs. 2027.05 towards gratuity on 15.4.1987 and pension is not admissible because he has not completed 10 years qualifying service. Shri V.S. Erry S/o Shri K.L. Erry, Rio B-38, Gole Market, Nilokheri be communicated accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension as it has been granted to one Ram Nath, Ex-Supervisor. She has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court passed in Central Provident Fund Commissioner. New Delhi and others, 2005 (2) RSg 534. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the averments made in the petitioner along with annexures. It remains undisputed that the petitioner has rendered about 9 years and 1 month service, which is obviously short of 10 years. Accordingly, the petitioner does not fulfil the basic requirement of Rs. 6.16(1) and (2) of the Rules, which has been rightly relied upon by the respondents to conclude that the benefit of pension could not be given to the petitioner as he had not rendered 10 years of minimum service required for the purpose of earning pension. Accordingly, the petitioner does not fulfil the basic requirement of Rs. 6.16(1) and (2) of the Rules, which has been rightly relied upon by the respondents to conclude that the benefit of pension could not be given to the petitioner as he had not rendered 10 years of minimum service required for the purpose of earning pension. The impugned order further states that the petitioner had filed C.W.P. No. 6066 of 1986 and gratuity in terms of Rule 6.16(1) was paid in accordance with the direction issued by the’ Division Bench of this Court. Rule 6.16(1) and (2) are reproduced as under for the facility of reference: “6.16. (1) In the case of a Government employee retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be the appropriate amount as set out in the table below, and no additional or special additional pension shall be granted to him. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6.16 (2). In the case of a Government employee retiring on or after the 1st April, 1979, in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years or more, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and compassionate pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined in rule 6.19-C of these rules subject to a maximum of Rs. 3,000 per mensem. However, in the case of a Government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension as such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs. 375 per mensem.” 6. A perusal of the aforementioned Rules makes it evident that pension would be admissible only on completion of 10 years of service on a pensionable post. In cases where the service rendered is less than 10 years then service gratuity under Rule 6.16(1) becomes payable. The aforementioned payment had already been claimed by the petitioner by filing C.W.P. No. 6066 of 1986, which was allowed on 12.1.1987 and direction was issued to pay the service gratuity to the petitioner. Accordingly, payment has already been made. In cases where the service rendered is less than 10 years then service gratuity under Rule 6.16(1) becomes payable. The aforementioned payment had already been claimed by the petitioner by filing C.W.P. No. 6066 of 1986, which was allowed on 12.1.1987 and direction was issued to pay the service gratuity to the petitioner. Accordingly, payment has already been made. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the officials who have been granted the relief of pension have all completed more than 10 years. Shri Amrit Lal had completed 14 years, Shri Purshotam Lal had completed 12 years, Shri Jeetu Ram had completed 11 years and 8hri 80m Dutt had also completed 11 years of service. Therefore, no discrimination has been made in applying the Rules to all the cases. 7. The judgment in Ram Nath’s case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, deal with a case where the employee has completed 10 years of service before his absorption in a non- pensionable post. The aforementioned factual position emerges from the judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Nath’s case where the Division Bench had observed that it is the admitted case between the parties that at the time of his initial appointment, the post of the petitioner with the State Government was pensionable post. However, the post on which he was appointed on the winding up of the Common Facility Workshop was a non- pensionable post. In these circumstances, the qualifying service of 11 years rendered by the petitioner before his appointment/transfer to Haryana Agro Industries Corporation cannot be ignored. He would of course be entitled to the pensionary benefits on the basis of the aforesaid qualifying service’. A perusal of the judgment further shows that Shri Ram Nath was appointed on 23.6.1965 and he was absorbed in the Corporation in 1976. Obviously, Shri Ram Nath had to his credit qualifying service of more than 10 years and there was no controversy before the Division Bench in that regard. Therefore, we fmd that the judgment in Ram Nath’s case (supra) would not govern the issue raised in this petition. 8. The other Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Babu Singh’s case (supra) is also distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we fmd that the judgment in Ram Nath’s case (supra) would not govern the issue raised in this petition. 8. The other Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Babu Singh’s case (supra) is also distinguishable and has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the petitioners sought the benefit of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners in that case were the members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Their services were terminated for a short while and they re-joined the same employer and were given due account numbers and membership on their re-appointment. The pensionary benefits were declined to them by refusing to count the service before and after the gap. In those circumstances, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had directed that the benefit of pension had been wrongly declined to the petitioners on the ground that they had less than 10 years of service. Facts and circumstances of the said case are absolutely different from the one in hand. Here, the services are governed by specific Rules and the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility for the statutory benefits sought for by him. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order dated 14.6.2005 (P-2) which is consistent with Rule 6.16(1) and (2) of the Rules, applicable for grant of pension. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.