Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.:- The petitioner, who was a Lab Assistant with the respondents, has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:- (A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to provide him pensionery benefit of his respective post. (B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner pending since 10.02.2010 (Annexure no. 7 ) before respondents. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was engaged as Lab Assistant on 01.03.1982, in work charge establishment of Public Works Department Ghaziabad. Later on the petitioner's appointment was made on substantive post of Lab Assistant on 07.02.2007, from where he retired from service on 31.01.2010. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner's case for regularisation was sent before the State Government by the recommendation of the departmental authorities to regularise the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant on the strength of government order dated 15.10.1997 but the respondents have delayed the matter and regularised the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant only on 07.02.2007. It is also averred that in paras 13 & 14 of the writ petition that after the retirement when the petitioner approached the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits to him, the stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner has completed only three years service on the substantive post, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. It appears, aggrieved by this action the petitioner has approached the respondents by way of an application but no written order has been passed thereon, hence this petition. I have heard Sri Jai Narain learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Suman Sirohi learned standing counsel for the State respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has rendered his services for about 28 years in the Public Works Department, therefore, the view taken by the respondents to refuse pensionery benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed ten years of service, is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. In his submissions services rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment be counted toward computing the period of qualifying service for grant of pension. In his submissions services rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment be counted toward computing the period of qualifying service for grant of pension. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) ESC 611 (All) (DB) Board of Revenue and others vs Prasidh Narain Upadhyay where a Division Bench of this Court has approved the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge that the period of working of an employee even on temporary basis be also counted towards computing the period of qualifying service for grant of pension. Another decision on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner happened to be the case of Veer Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (4) ESC 2360 (All) where Hon'ble Single Judge dealing with similar controversy relying upon the judgment of Board of Revenue Vs Prasidh Narain (supra) has held that temporary service rendered by the petitioner cannot be permitted to be ignored and the same has to be clubbed for purposes of computation of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Suman Sirohi learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents has submitted that while counting the period of qualifying service for grant of pension, the service rendered by the petitioner in the work charge establishment cannot be counted. In her submissions the work charge employee cannot be equated with temporary employee working against a permanent post. In her further submissions regular establishment is altogether different from the work charge establishment and that cannot be equated with each other. The work charge establishment is not a permanent in nature, therefore, the persons working in the work charge establishment cannot be treated to be at par with the persons working against the substantive posts sanctioned by the State Government in permanent establishment. In support of her submissions she has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2006 (3) ESC 2248 (All) Bansh Gopal vs State of U.P. and 2007 (2) ESC 890 (All) Gambhir Singh vs State of U.P., and others. In support of her submissions she has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2006 (3) ESC 2248 (All) Bansh Gopal vs State of U.P. and 2007 (2) ESC 890 (All) Gambhir Singh vs State of U.P., and others. In the case of Bansh Gopal (supra) this Court after distinguishing the judgment of Board of Revenue vs Prasidh Narain (supra) has taken the different view and dismissed the appeal of the appellant for counting the period spent in work charge establishment for computation of period of qualifying service for grant of pension. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. The dispute involved in this writ petition appears to be two folds: (1)Whether on the admitted fact when the petitioner had worked only for a period of three years on a substantive post is entitled for pensionery benefits in view of the existing statutory provisions i.e.,Fundamental Rules, government order dated 15.10.1997 and Civil Services Regulations 361 & 370. (2)Whether the writ of mandamus can be issued for deciding the representation dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure-7 ) pending before respondents in view of prayer (b) of the writ petition. So far as the first point is concerned, it is stated in paragraphs 13 & 14 of the writ petition that respondents have denied to extend the benefit of pension on the ground that the petitioner has completed only three years regular service. In this situation it has to be decided whether the respondents have erred in refusing to grant pension. For testing this argument it has to be seen that what are the relevant provisions for grant of pension to a government servant. For this purpose to my mind the Fundamental Rule 56 (e), Regulation 361 and 370 of Civil Services Regulations are relevant and the same are reproduced below: (i) " 56 (e) A retiring pension 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." (ii) Civil Service Regulations 361 The service of an officer does not 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. (iii) Civil Service Regulations 370 " An officer may count continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh following without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except-- (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid form contingencies." From the bare perusal of Fundamental Rule 56 (e) it transpires that pension shall be payable including other retiral benefits subject to the provisions of relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule. It is not disputed here that the petitioner has retired as a government servant but only question which would arise in this case is as to whether in view of Article 361 which speaks about the qualifying service for grant of pension, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for payment of pension. According to this regulation the present petitioner satisfy the ingredient of clause 'First' and 'Third' but he does not satisfy the clause 'Second' which provides that the employment must be substantive and permanent, if this is interpreted looking into the provisions of regulation 370 (ii) then it will transpire that period of service of work charge establishment shall not be counted for computation of period of qualifying service for grant of pension. In the case of Board of Revenue and others vs Prasidh Narain Upadhyay and Veer Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and others this court while dealing with the case of government employee appointed under permanent establishment against substantive post on temporary basis, who continued for quite long time, has taken the view that the continuation for a long time even on temporary basis will be counted for computing the period of qualifying service for grant of pension, but here the case is entirely different, here the petitioner was not appointed in the permanent establishment against the substantive post but his initial engagement was in work charge establishment which is a separate class other than the permanent establishment. Undisputedly the payment of salary has been made to the petitioner from the State Exchequer by the government, but in view of clause (ii) of Regulation 361 this period cannot be counted for computing the period of qualifying service for grant of pension as the petitioner was appointed in work charge establishment and was regularised in the year 2007. It is well settled that the employee of work charge establishment and permanent establishment can not be put at par. In the case of Bansh Gopal vs State of U.P. 2006(3) ESC 2248 (All) the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: 18.The relevant rules for payment of pension are contained in Civil Services Regulation. There is nothing inconsistent between Fundamental Rule 56 and Regulation 370 so as to not follow Regulation 370. According to Regulation 370, the services rendered by appellant in work-charge establishment does not qualify for purposes of pension. 19.The appellant's case is also not covered by the Government Order dated 01.07.1989. The Government Order required that pension shall be payable also to temporary employee who have rendered at lease 10 years of regular service. The appellant cannot be said to have rendered 10 years regular service since he was taken into regular service from work-charge establishment only by order dated 12.10.1999 and he retired on 31.5.2005. The Government Order required that pension shall be payable also to temporary employee who have rendered at lease 10 years of regular service. The appellant cannot be said to have rendered 10 years regular service since he was taken into regular service from work-charge establishment only by order dated 12.10.1999 and he retired on 31.5.2005. The same view has been taken in the case of Gambhir Singh vs State of U.P. and others 2007 (2) ESC 890 (All) therefore, the decision cited by the petitioner in the case of Board of Revenue vs Prasidh Narain and Veerpal Singh vs State of U.P., and others (supra) are of no help to the petitioner as undoubtedly the petitioner's appointment in the permanent establishment was made only in the year 2007 and where he has completed only three years service. Whereas the government order dated 01.07.1989 provides that a government servant who has completed 10 years regular service on the date of superannuation is entitled for payment of pension. In view of that also the relief sought by the petitioner to grant pension after counting the period spent in the work charge establishment for the purpose of counting period of qualifying service for grant of pension cannot be granted. In view of the observation made above the point no.1 is answered in negative. In so far as point no.2 is concerned suffice it to say that if the petitioner is not entitled for pensionery benefits in view of the observation made herein above the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation can not be granted as it will only be a futile exercise and it is well settled that futile writs are not issued by the court in S.L.Kapoor vs Jagmohan and others reported in ( 1980) 4 SCC 379. The point no. 2 is also answered in negative. In the result the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.