Judgment :- The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondents in declining the pension to the petitioner, on the ground of his not having completed ten years of service. 2. The petitioner also challenged the action of the respondents in treating the period from 18.11.73 to 04.04.79 as leave on loss of pay. 3. The petitioner joined the service with Transport Department as Driver on 5.9.67. The petitioner was made permanent with effect from 1.9.68. The petitioner suffered paralytic attack and applied for leave from 18.11.73. The petitioner was granted medical leave for six months with salary. Even on expiry of the leave period, the petitioner could not join as he was still under treatment for paralysis. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a resignation on 31.01.75 which was accepted. 4. In the meantime, the Government took a policy decision to transfer the services of Transport employees to newly formed State owned Transport Corporation. In order to persuade the employees to give up their status as Government servants, the Government offered to pay pension in case the employees did accept the offer of absorption in the newly formed Transport Corporation, even before their retirement, or attaining the age of superannuation. 5. 1.5.1975 was the date fixed for absorption of employees working in the Transport Department in the Transport Corporation. It is not disputed, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the date of absorption of the Government employees with the Transport Corporation to 1982 with sole object of giving service benefit for pension to the absorbed employees who became eligible for pension by the said date. 6. It is the submission of the petitioner, that on realising his mistake in submitting resignation, the petitioner made an application to withdraw his resignation on 16.7.76. The request of the petitioner was rejected, but on appeal, the request was accepted, and consequently, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin the duty on 27.3.79. The period of absence was treated to be leave, without pay. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner that after retirement from service in the year 1995, the petitioner filed representation for grant of pension to the petitioner, by treating the date of joining the service as 5.5.69. The period of absence was treated to be leave, without pay. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner that after retirement from service in the year 1995, the petitioner filed representation for grant of pension to the petitioner, by treating the date of joining the service as 5.5.69. In the year 2008, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground, that the period spent by the petitioner between the date of resignation and the date of reinstatement in service was treated as “leave with loss of pay” and therefore, this period could not be counted for grant of pension. The petitioner therefore had not completed ten years of service with the State Government to be eligible for grant of pension, even if the date of joining is taken as 5.9.1967, and date of absorption in Corporation as 1982. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by contending that it was not open to the respondents to review the decision earlier taken in granting the leave, to the petitioner for the absence period. 9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that for the purposes of pension, the original date of appointment has to be taken into consideration and not the date of regularisation. The respondents ought to have taken the period spent between the date of resignation and reinstatement to be the period spent on extraordinary leave, to count towards pension period. 10. However, on consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Admittedly, if the benefit of service from the initial date of appointment is given to the petitioner, the total service rendered by the petitioner with the Government till 1982 comes to 9 years 2 months and 10 days. The petitioner therefore does not qualify for grant of pension. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the leave period should also be counted as service cannot be accepted, as the leave with loss of pay was granted to the petitioner by way of concession, to cover the period between the date of resignation and subsequent acceptance of request to withdraw the resignation. The respondents are right in treating the period as one spent on leave without pay. 11. The respondents are right in treating the period as one spent on leave without pay. 11. For the reasons stated, no fault can be found with the impugned order, in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of pension. 12. Finding no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.