ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (i) That, the action of the Respondents not regularizing the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 5-10-1979 to 30-10-1988 may kindly be declared illegal, null and void and consequentially the same may kindly be quashed. (ii) That, the Respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the aforesaid period for grant of consequential service benefits to the Petitioner including the benefit of time bound promotion, pension, gratuity etc. and accordingly revise the entire case of the Petitioner counting the aforesaid period as qualifying service. (iii) That, the Respondents may kindly be directed to pay entire arrear after revising the pay and retiremental dues of the Petitioner within a reasonable period of time with interest 12% per annum. (iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or (v) Any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the Petitioner. 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Petitioner was removed from service on 17-9-1980 (Annexure-P/2) however later on he was directed to be reinstated on 29-10-1988 (Annexure-P/5). The Petitioner was thereafter regularized on the post of Assistant Grade-Ill and ultimately he retired on 30-3-2009 however the pension for the period between removal and reinstatement has not been allowed to him. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that since order of removal has been set aside, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for full pension. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on Rule 25 as well as 27 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Rules"), hence it has been put-forth that this petition be allowed and pension be provided to him from the date his initial appointment 17-9-1980 and not from subsequent date. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that Petitioner is not entitled for pension by calculating from his initial date of appointment. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On bare perusal of Rule 25 of the said Rules, it is gathered that if a government servant, who is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, but is subsequently reinstated, is entitled to count his past service. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On bare perusal of Rule 25 of the said Rules, it is gathered that if a government servant, who is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, but is subsequently reinstated, is entitled to count his past service. According to Rule 27 of the said Rules an interruption in the service of a Government servant entails forfeiture of his past service except mentioned in the cases and involved in this Rule. Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) relates to dismissal or removal from service followed by reinstatement in pensionable service. In the present case admittedly the order of removal from services of Petitioner has been set aside by the State Government. 6. By testing the aforesaid Rules on the touchstone and anvil of present factual scenario, it is gathered that case of Petitioner would be governed by Rule 25 and 27(1)(d) of the said Rules and therefore I have no hesitation in holding that pension of Petitioner should be computed from the date of his initial appointment which is 17-9-1980 (sic). 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs and the Respondents are hereby directed to compute and pay the pension of the Petitioner w.e.f. 17-9-1980 which is his initial date of appointment and difference of pension be paid on or before 31-5-2011, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Counsel fee of Rs. 2000/-, if pre-certified.