D.S. Thakur, J.— 1. The petitioner-Nizam-ud-Din, filed a writ petition claiming therein that he came to be engaged as Maktab teacher in the year 1960, in a school on a monthly salary of Rs. 35/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/-per month. 2. In the year 1988, the Government appears to have taken a decision vide Government Order No. 696(Edu) of 1988 dt. 12th of July' 88, to appoint all the Maktab teachers/Patshala teachers on regular basis after relaxing their upper age limit. 3. The petitioner was also granted this benefit of regularization of his services as teacher vide Government Order No. 1133-Edu of 1989 dt. 29th of Nov' 89. Finally the petitioner superannuated on 30th of April' 93. 4. Since the petitioner would not be eligible for pensionary benefits unless the service rendered by him as Maktab teacher w.e.f. 1960 uptill Nov' 89, when he was regularized as a teacher, was also taken into consideration, he invoked the writ jurisdiction before a Single Bench of this court. 5. By virtue of judgment and order dt. 11th of Aug' 2010, making reference to the provisions as contained in the J&K Civil Service Regulations, (here-in-after called the Regulations) in particular Article 177-A, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and other service benefits after counting 50% of the service rendered by the said employee as Maktab teacher while processing his case for grant of such pension. 6. A review petition bearing Rev(SW) No. 11/2010, came to be filed by the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order impugned dt. 16th of March' 11. Last two paragraphs of the judgment under review were directed to be recast as under:- "In the given circumstances, the respondents are under legal obligation to also count the services of the petitioner rendered as a Maktab Teacher till he was confirmed, while processing his case for grant of pension. Keeping in view the above discussion, I deem it proper to grant the writ petition. Keeping in view the above discussion, I deem it proper to grant the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is granted and respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and other service benefits while keeping in view Article 177, 177A, 178 and 34 A of Civil Service Regulations and make a decision within three months from the date the copy of the order is served upon them." 7. The appellant-State has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dt. 16th of March' 11, passed in the aforementioned Review petition, wherein Zerifa Begum, wife of the petitioner has been incorporated as party respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State urged that the post of Maktab teacher/Patshala teacher, was neither covered by the term 'daily wager' nor by the term 'temporary', as such Articles 177, 177-A and 178, read with Article 34-A of the Regulations, were not attracted to the facts of the present case. 9. A reference to the judgment and order dt. 11th of Aug' 10, would show that despite being directed to produce the relevant rules which were applicable to Maktab teachers at the relevant point of time, the counsel for the State simply stated that he was not in a position to obtain the copies of such rules governing the service conditions of Maktab teachers. 10. Apart from making a plain assertion that the provisions of Articles 177, 177-A, 178 read with Section 34-A of the Regulations were not applicable to the facts of the present case, no rules or guideline with regard to the nature of appointment of a Maktab teacher was placed before this court also by the counsel for the appellant. 11. For the purposes of determining the entitlement of the petitioner for pension and other service benefits, it would be apt to notice the provisions of Articles 177, 177-A and 178 of the Regulations. These read as under:- "177. 11. For the purposes of determining the entitlement of the petitioner for pension and other service benefits, it would be apt to notice the provisions of Articles 177, 177-A and 178 of the Regulations. These read as under:- "177. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds substantive office on a permanent establishment: Provided that in case of a Government servant retiring from service on or after 1st January, 1962 if he was holding a substantive office on a permanent establishment on the date of his retirement, temporary, officiating including temporary service on temporary establishment/Department S.P.T., or quasi-permanent service followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post shall count in full as qualifying service, except in respect of:- (i) periods of service paid on work charge establishment, and (ii) periods of service paid from contingencies: Provided further..................................... 177-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Art. 177, a work charged employee/whole time contingent paid staff including daily rated worker(s) [excluding casual/seasonal worker(s)] who is/are brought on regular establishment and retires/retire without having been declared substantive or quasi-permanent, shall be allowed to count 50% of his/her work charged/contingent paid service as qualifying for pension together with the period of service rendered in regular establishment. If the total of two spells is 20 years of more, he will be eligible for pension under the preceding proviso. This shall have effect from the date of issue of O.M. No. A/36 (94)4152 dated 29-12-1995. 178. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 177 an officer transferred from a temporary to a permanent appointment can count his service in the temporary office if, though at first created experimentally or temporary, it eventually becomes permanent." 12. Temporary post' has been defined under Art. 34-A of the Regulations, which may also be noticed as under:- "34-A. Temporary post means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time. Such a post can be held in an officiating capacity." 13. Temporary Service" has been defined in Rule 2(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. The same being relevant, is also reproduced below:- "2(d): "Temporary Service" means service against a temporary post and officiating service in a permanent post under the Government." 14. Such a post can be held in an officiating capacity." 13. Temporary Service" has been defined in Rule 2(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961. The same being relevant, is also reproduced below:- "2(d): "Temporary Service" means service against a temporary post and officiating service in a permanent post under the Government." 14. In the present case also, as indicated above, the petitioner came to be appointed/engaged as Maktab teacher in the year 1960 and worked as such upto Nov' 89. Thereafter, he was appointed as teacher on regular basis on 29th of Nov' 89 and superannuated on 30th of April' 93. Therefore, in terms of 1st proviso to Article 177, noticed above, the temporary service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1960 till Nov' 89, as Maktab teacher would, therefore, be counted for the purposes of determining the qualifying service qua release of pension and other service benefits, in as much as, the post of Maktab Teacher was a temporary post carrying a definite pay of Rs. 35/100/- per month. The temporary service of the petitioner against the temporary post of Maktab teacher, as indicated above, would thus, count towards qualifying service in terms of the provisions reproduced above and in particular Article 177 of the Regulations. 15. The provisions of the rules reproduced hereinabove, in fact, clearly are the provisions aimed at providing relief of pensionary benefits to those who have worked for a considerably long period of time on temporary posts/temporary establishments. Article 177-A, in fact, even recognizes the services rendered by daily wagers and work charged employees for determining the 'qualifying service' for pension. 16. The case at hand, however, stands on a better footing than those covered under Article 177-A above. 17. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant State must recognize the service rendered by the petitioner for a long period of time w.e.f. 1960, as Maktab teacher on a paltry sum of Rs. 35/- per month, increased subsequently to Rs.100/- per month. 17. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant State must recognize the service rendered by the petitioner for a long period of time w.e.f. 1960, as Maktab teacher on a paltry sum of Rs. 35/- per month, increased subsequently to Rs.100/- per month. The service rendered by the petitioner for a period of about 29 years from 1960 to 1989, till he was appointed on regular basis as Teacher, can be termed nothing but exploitative on the part of the State, It would, thus, be highly unjust at this stage to deny the benefits of the service rendered by the petitioner only for a limited purpose of counting the said period for making him eligible to receive the pension. 18. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed along with connected CMA with cost of Rs. 5000/-.