JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri J.P.N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a seasonal collection peon on a temporary basis on 8th of June, 1964 and worked in that capacity till he reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. The service record, which has been annexed as Annexure ‘2’ to the writ petition, indicates that from 8th of April, 1964 to 4th of March, 1982, the petitioner has worked intermittently and there are gaps between the first appointment and the subsequent appointment, but, from 1.4.1982 till 31st December, 2001, the service record shows that he has worked continuously without any break in service. The service record also shows that the petitioner was categorised in a particular pay-scale and was not being paid a fixed or a lump-sum amount. Upon his retirement, the petitioner applied for pension, which remained pending, and consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to grant pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has put in Government service of 37 years and assuming that the period from 1964 to 1982 is excluded, even then, from 1982 till the date of his retirement, the petitioner has worked continuously without any break in service, for more than 19 years, and therefore, is qualified to be entitled for pension and that he has to be treated as a regular employee in Government service. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that the petitioner remained a temporary seasonal collection peon and that his services were never regularised, and consequently, the petitioner should not be treated as a permanent employee appointed on a substantive or permanent post, and therefore, was not qualified for entitlement of any pension. 5. Rule 56 (e) of the Fundamental Rules provides payment of pension and other retirement benefits to every Government servant. For facility, the said rule is quoted hereunder : “56 (e) A retiring person shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule. For facility, the said rule is quoted hereunder : “56 (e) A retiring person shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule. Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less.” 6. As per Government Order dated 1st July, 1989 (Annexure ‘7’ to the writ petition), the State Government has clarified that a Government employee, who has put in 10 years of regular service, would qualify to receive pension. Qualifying service has been defined under Regulation 361 of Section 1 of Chapter XVI of the Civil Service Regulations, which provides that the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions : “First—The service must be under Government. Second—The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third—The service must be paid by Government.” 7. Admittedly, the 1st and 3rd conditions are met. The petitioner was in the service of the Government and was also paid the salary by the Government. The question is whether the employment of the petitioner was substantive and permanent? This question has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (1) ESC 611, wherein the Court held that in view of the provisions of Rule 56 (c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules even a temporary employee is entitled to receive pension. The Court held that a person, who had worked for 37 years, would be entitled for pension, and the same cannot be brushed aside on the ground that his services remained temporary. Similar view was also held in the case of Dr. The Court held that a person, who had worked for 37 years, would be entitled for pension, and the same cannot be brushed aside on the ground that his services remained temporary. Similar view was also held in the case of Dr. Hari Shankar Asopa v. State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337 in Writ Petition No. 49080 of 2000 (Bhikhari Yadav v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 6.8.2007, wherein the claim of the employee for pension, who had retired as a temporary seasonal collection peon, was allowed, and it was held that the said temporary employee was entitled for pension and other retirement benefits. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. The said calculation shall be made and the amount disbursed by the authorities within three months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order. ————