S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether services of petitioner rendered before 1. 4. 1996 can be counted for the purposes of pension or not? 3. Petitioner claims that he was appointed as peon on 3. 1. 1978 in Jaiprabha Shiksha Sansthan Bheura Dubolia Bazar, Basti, which is a recog nized Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the school)- Petitioner further claims that his services were regularised on 2. 9. 1985. The school was brought on grant-in-aid list w. e. f. 1. 4. 1996. Petitioner retired on 31. 12. 2002. As Annexure-3 to the writ petition, a Government Order dated 26. 7. 2001 has been annexed. According to the said G. O. , the period of service of teachers and non-teaching employees or recognized schools and colleges prior to the date on which they were brought on grant-in-aid list would also be counted for the pur poses of pension, provided that the contribution of the management towards provident fund of the employee concerned for the said period is deposited along with interest uptil 31. 3. 2002. It is also mentioned that earlier the said cut off date was 30. 6. 1999, which was being extended. 4. Earlier as petitioner had filed a writ petition, which was disposed of on 13. 4. 2004 with the direction to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti to decide the same. B. S. A. through order dated 4. 8. 2005 rejected the claim of pension of the petitioner, copy of which is Anneuxre-18 to the writ petition. The said or der is under-challenge through this writ petition. 5. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that manger stated that he had not received any order or direction regarding deposit of P. P. contribution of the management. It is also mentioned in the said order that the entire provident fund (P. P.), which had been deposited by the petitioner after 1. 4. 1996 since when school was brought on grant-in-aid list, along with interest had been re funded to the petitioner. Representation was rejected on the ground that until 31. 3. 2002 the last cut off date, contribution of management of provident fund in respect of petitioner was not deposited. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 6. 9. Representation was rejected on the ground that until 31. 3. 2002 the last cut off date, contribution of management of provident fund in respect of petitioner was not deposited. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 6. 9. 2006 delivered in W. P. No. 75746 of 2005, Smt. Shanti Solanki v. State. The said writ petition has allowed only on the ground that counter-affidavit had not been filed, hence there appeared to be no justifica tion for fixing the cut off date of 31. 3. 2002 as the last date for deposit of the managements contribution toward P. P. together with interest. Last paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below: "consequently, writ petition is allowed and in case petitioner deposits the managements contribution together with interest within a period of six weeks, the respondents shall extend the benefit of the said Government or der to the petitioner with a further period of six weeks. No order as to costs. " 7. Along with supplementary affidavit, copy of G. O. dated 23. 5. 1998 has been annexed through which for the first time the provision of adding the pe riod of service prior to the date on which a school or college is brought on grant-in-aid list was provided. In the said G. O. , it is provided that the benefit of pension scheme was being extended to the teachers and other employees of aided schools/colleges since the date on which they have been brought on grant-in-aid list and it had further been decided that the prior period shall also be added in the length of service for the purposes of pension on the condi tion that the contribution of the management towards G. P. F. of the employee concerned is deposited by the manage or the employee along with interest and contribution of teacher/employee should also have been deposited in G. P. F. ac count. Through subsequent orders only cut off date to deposit contribution of the management towards G. P. F. was extended. 8. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the contribution of the petitioner was deposited in the G. P. F. account. Contribution of the management was also not deposited till the last cut off date 31. 3. 2002. Through subsequent orders only cut off date to deposit contribution of the management towards G. P. F. was extended. 8. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the contribution of the petitioner was deposited in the G. P. F. account. Contribution of the management was also not deposited till the last cut off date 31. 3. 2002. Due to failure in com pliance of any of the conditions, it cannot be directed that services of the peti tioner prior to the date when institution was brought on grant-in-aid list should be counted for the purposes of pension. 9. For making any deposit, there has to be a cut off date. The cut off date had repeatedly been changed. For the last time through G. O. dated 26. 7. 2001 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the cut off date was extended to 31. 3. 2002. Sufficient margin of about eight or nine months was given and cut off date coin cided with the end of the financial year. Accordingly, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. 10. Under the G. O. dated 23. 5. 1998; the contribution of the management could be deposited by the petitioner himself. Accordingly, the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that now petitioner must be permitted to de posit contribution of the management is not tenable. It ought to have been done by the petitioner under G. O. dated 23. 5. 1998 till the last cut off date, which was extended subsequently to 31. 3. 2002. 11. In any case petitioner never deposited his own contribution towards provident fund prior to 1. 4. 1996, when the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list. 12. In the instant case, counter-affidavit has been filed and learned Counsel for the State has argued that the cut off date 31. 3. 2002 is quite reason able and not arbitrary. 13. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .