SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Heard Sri Sidharth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard finally at admission stage and is decided under the Rules of the Court. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 8-12-1998 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut the petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the same and further seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner treating him in continuous service from 21-9-1956 on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Consolidation Lekhpal on 21-9-1956 and he worked till 31-1-1964. Thereafter he was again employed on 4-2- 1966 and worked ill 4-6-1967. From 1-8-1967 to 6-3-1971 he worked as Consolidation Lekhpal in the office of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Meerut. He claims to have worked thereafter as Lekhpal in different spells at Tahsil Hapur, i. e. , 5-7- 1971 to 6-10-1971, 1-8-1972 to 24-5-1972, 26-12-1972 to 24-5- 1973, 1-9-1973 to 18-3-1974, 19-3-1974 to 15-5-1974, 24-4-1975 to 9-9-1975 and 22-1-1976 to 22-7-1976, thereafter at Tahsil Meerut from 1-8-1976 to 26-8-1977 and then at Tahsil Mawana from 14-6- 1978 to 26-6-1984. Since his engagement at Tahsil Mawana was purely on temporary basis, he was terminated under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules,1975 (hereinafter referred to as "1975 Rules") vide order dated 19-6-1984 passed by the appointing authority, i. e. , Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mawana, District Meerut. 4. Against order of termination the petitioner represented before the District Magistrate, Meerut and Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and both rejected his representations. Thereafter he appears to have a representation to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, which was disposed of vide order dated 26-6- 1987 observing that the petitioner was found indulged in making forged signatures of the officials of the department and making various irregularities in land records hence after assessment of his performance he was terminated vide order dated 19-6-1984 being a temporary employee but considering the fact that he has been in employment for a long time and has also completed Lekhpals Training on 19-2- 1983, his case may be reconsidered. pursuant to the aforesaid directions the Sub- Divisional Officer issued order dated 30-11-1988 appointing petitioner as Lekhpal as a new appointment. The petitioner joined service and thereafter claims to have made representation dated 28-2-1989, to the Commissioner, Meerut stating that instead of fresh appointment it should be treated as reinstatement in service with the benefit of earlier service. It is said that the aforesaid representation remained pending and in the mean time, petitioner on attaining age of superannuation of 58 years retired from service on 31-7-1998. He thereafter sought payment of retiral benefits which was considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut who found that the petitioner having not served for the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, was not entitle for pension and the gratuity payable to him under the Rules is liable to be paid for which recommendation was made seeking approval from the Additional Commissioner (Finance) Board of Revenue, Meerut. Aggrieved by the order dated 8-12-1988 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the petitioner is not entitled for any pension, the present writ petition has been filed claiming that he was illegally terminated in the year 1984 and since his representation was allowed by the Board of Revenue, the appointment letter dated 30-11-1988 is in fact an order of reinstatement and therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of the entire past service. Relying on Article 370 of Civil Service Regulations (in short csr), it is contended that temporary and officiating service also count for qualifying service and therefore, denial of pension to the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the Rules. 5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit disputing claim of the petitioner and it has been averred that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1984 and remained out of employment from 26-6-1984 to 30-11-1988. He was issued a fresh letter of appointment on 30-11-1988 pursuant whereto he joined on 3-12-1988 and therefore, till the date he attained age of superannuation in the year 1998 he has served continuously only for a period of 9 years, 7 months and 29 days and it is less than the minimum qualifying service for pension since the minimum service qualify for pension is 10 years. It is also stated that his representation dated 28-2-1989 submitted to the Commissioner has already been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on 16-10- 1990. 6. It is also stated that his representation dated 28-2-1989 submitted to the Commissioner has already been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on 16-10- 1990. 6. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has reiterated his claim as stated in the writ petition and it has been said that for the purpose of pensionary benefit, his entire services from 1956 to 1984 is liable to be counted. 7. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. Before coming to other aspects of the matter it would be appropriate to consider the question as to whether the service of the petitioner from 1956 to 1984 could be considered under Article 370 of CSR which reads as under : 370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except - (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies. " It would be appropriate to notice Article 368 of CSR which reads as under : "368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. " 8. The aforesaid are pre-constitutional rules. An amendment was made in fundamental Rule 56 vide U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 33 1976) whereby a retiral pension and other retiral benefits are payable, if any, to a Government servant who retires or is required to retire under the aforesaid rules. It applies to permanent as well as temporary employees, both. Therefore, a temporary employee, on retirement, if the establishment is pensionable, may be entitled for retiral pension and other retiral benefits, if payable under the Rules provided his service is continuous and uninterrupted and he has completed minimum qualifying service. However from the facts narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition itself it is difficult to hold that the petitioner has served continuously and uninterruptedly inasmuch as his first spell of temporary service was from 21-9- 1956 to 31-1-1964, thereafter there is a gap of about 2 years and in the second spell he worked from 4- 2- 1966 to 4-6-1967. Again there is a gap of approximately 2 months and in third spell he worked from 1- 8-1967 to 6-3-1971. Again there is a gap of approximately 2 months and in third spell he worked from 1- 8-1967 to 6-3-1971. After a gap of about 4 months, in the fourth spell, he worked from 5-7- 1971 to 6- 10-1971 and after a gap of nine months and more he was employed from 1-8-1972 to 24-5-1972. Then again there is a gap of about 7 months and then he worked from 26-12-1972 to 24-5-1973. After a gap of three months and more he worked from 1-9-1973 to 18-3-1974 and 19-3-1974 to 15-5-1974. Thereafter, there is a gap of more than 11 months and then in the next spell he worked for about 4 months from 24-4-1975 to 9-9-1975 and again there is a gap of more than three months whereafter he worked from 22-1-1976 to 22-7-1976 Then at a different placer, i. e. , Tahsil Meerut after a gap of about 9 days he worked from 1-8-1976 to 26- 8-1977. Again there is a gap of about 9 months and more and thereafter he worked from 14-6-1978 to 2-6-1984. In view of the aforesaid I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he has served continuously and uninterruptedly from 1956 to 1984 and the aforesaid service, therefore, cannot be said to be continuous and uninterrupted temporary service which may qualify for pension. In order to hold an uninterrupted and continuous officiating or temporary service, it should not be an appointment made for a specified tenure, must has continued without interruption and only then it may qualify and not otherwise. Therefore, the basic premise of the petitioners submission that he has been continuously serving the department though on temporary basis from 1956 to 1984 is unacceptable and hence rejected. 9. Now coming to the cardinal question as to whether appointment of the petitioner in 1988 is a fresh appointment or he is entitled for the benefit of post service treating him as reinstated with the benefit of past service, it is evident from the record that he was terminated by the appointing authority in exercise of statutory powers under 1975 Rules and the said order of termination was not set aside by any competent authority or Court of law. Moreover the representation made to the Board of Revenue, which is also non statutory since learned Counsel for petitioner could not show any statutory provision under which such a representation could have been made, even thereunder, the Secretary of the Board of Revenue has only directed the appointing authority to reconsider the matter. The aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, therefore, cannot be treated to be an order having the effect of setting aside termination order dated 19-6-1984 passed by the appointing authority, unless it is revoked of recalled by the appointing authority. Thereafter the appointing authority in its discretion decided to appoint the petitioner afresh by appointment letter dated 30-11-1988. The petitioner joined in pursuant thereto and accepted the aforesaid appointment letter as such whereby he was given a fresh appointment without any benefit of past service. In this view of the matter I do not find any force in the submission of the petitioner that the order of fresh appointment issued by the appointing authority on 30-11-1988 is liable to be treated as an order of reinstatement with benefit of past service and learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not place any statutory provision or legal exposition whereunder such an order can be construed as an order of reinstatement with benefit of past service. It is true that the petitioner claimed to have made a representation to the Commissioner, Meerut on 28-2-1989 and there is some dispute between the parties as to whether the said representation is decided by the Commissioner or not inasmuch as the respondent have claimed that the said representation was rejected by the Commissioner on 16-10-1990 though the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit has disputed communication of such an order but in my view the said fact would not have any material bearing on the issue since against an order of appointment made by the competent authority, no appeal under any statute lie to the Commissioner and none has been pointed out to the Court. A non statutory representation will not have any material bearing on the exercise of statutory power by the competent authority. It would be appropriate to refer at this stage that Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "1958 Rules") governs recruitment and condition of service of Lekhpals in the State of U. P. The 1958 Rules declares Lekhpal service as a non-gazetted subordinate service. It would be appropriate to refer at this stage that Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "1958 Rules") governs recruitment and condition of service of Lekhpals in the State of U. P. The 1958 Rules declares Lekhpal service as a non-gazetted subordinate service. The power of appointment has been conferred upon the Assistant Collector, In-charge of Sub-Division. Rule 7 of 1958 Rules however permits the Settlement or Record Officer or the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation, as the case may be, to make a temporary appointment against a permanent vacancy pending appointment of a permanent Lekhpal by the Assistant Collector. Against any decision of the Assistant Collector under first proviso of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of 1958 Rules where an Assistant Collector supersedes a person in the select list for appointment to the post of Lekhpal an appeal lie to the Collector. There is no other provision under which any appeal in the matter of appointment would lie to the Commissioner of a Division. Since the matter of appointment is governed by statutory rules, the statutory power exercised by the appointing authority cannot be lightly interfered by referring to non statutory representations or appeals made to the higher authorities since even if in the hierarchy of the Government department, whenever any direction is issued by a higher authority to the subordinate authority the same is only a guidance to the subordinate authority for proper exercise of its power but that by itself would not give any cause of action to a person assailing the statutory exercise of power. Even otherwise the order of termination having attained finality since it was never set aside and the petitioner also remained out of employment from 1984 to 1988, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that he has continuously and interruptedly served in the department from 1956 to 1988 and therefore, break of service from 1984 to 1988 also cannot be ignored for the purpose of determining whether there is a continuous temporary service rendered by the petitioner in the department in order to get pensionary benefit. 10. 10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error on the face of record committed by the respondent, Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut in holding that the petitioner has not rendered minimum qualifying service required under the rules for pension and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition does not warrant any interference. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .