Judgment 1. By means of this writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following prayers: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payments of superannuating service pension with two years arrears of pay of 2000 to 2001 with gratuity with revised pay scale to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum forthwith from the first initial appointment of the petitioner with all pensionary benefits eligible to him according to the G.O.'s (Annexures Nos. 2, 3,4& no. 8 to this petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to enforce the superannuating service pension with interest @ 12% per annum with all pensionary benefits as available to A.K. Khan Pharidi clerk who is serving in the said department after retiring 58 years of age and still service. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition from the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case is that he has worked on the work charge basis in the respondent's department from 01-08-1977 to 12-09-1990 and has also worked continuously w.e.f. 01-08-1970 to 31-01-2000 for about 24 years. He had also worked on the post of Tumer Grade-l as regular employee w.e.f. 12-09-1990 to 31-01-2000. He was retired on 31-01-2000 after attaining the age of 58 years according to Rules prevalent at the relevant time. After retirement of the petitioner, the Government issued a G.O. by which the age of the superannuation was extended upto to 60 years. The petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years prior to the issuance of the subsequent G.O. As such, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the extended period of service. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was in service since 01-081977 to 31-01-2000 and he had served the department for 24 years and as such he was entitled for the pension under the Pensionary Benefit Scheme. Learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the contention and contended that the petitioner had been working since 0208-1977 to 11-09-1990 as work charge employee on daily wages. Learned Standing Counsel for the State refuted the contention and contended that the petitioner had been working since 0208-1977 to 11-09-1990 as work charge employee on daily wages. On 12-09-1990 the petitioner was regularized on the post of Mechanic Grade-III and he was retired on 31-01-2000 after attaining the age of 58 years according to Rules prevalent at the relevant time. It was further contended that the services of the petitioner was less than 10 years and as such he was not entitled to get the pensionary benefits in view of the Government Order dated 28-07-1989 (Annexure-II of the counter affidavit). It was further contended that the amount of gratuity i.e. Rs. 13,500/- has already been paid to the petitioner on 10-09-2004. The respondents have also filed the Supplementary Counter Affidavit to that effect. Perusal of the G. O. dated 28-071989 (Annexure-II to the counter affidavit) reveals that those employees who have completed 10 years of service are entitled to get the pension and a person who has less than 10 years of service he is not entitled to get the pension. This G.O. only provides that the amount of gratuity can only be paid to the petitioner and the same has already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had been working in the department since 2-8-1977. to 12-9-1990 as daily wages. As such, the service of the petitioner could not counted for the said period. The service of the petitioner Le. 2-8-1977 to 12-09-1990 cannot be treated at par with the regular employee of the department. The daily wager has no right to retain the post till he is absorbed. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR sew p/1991). His service can only be counted from 12-09-1990 when he was regularized on the post of Mechanic Grade-III. He was retired from service on 31-01-2000 after attaining the age of his superannuation. Thus, it is evident from the record that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service in the department. In view of G.O. dated 28-07-1989, the petitioner is not entitled to get the pensionary benefits. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. * * *