Order The present writ petition is filed for setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in OA No. 164 of 2011(R) dated 16th April, 2013 in and by which the Tribunal held that the pension is to be calculated taking into account the total period of service i.e. period of temporary status and also the regular service, which is more than 10 years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as the Railway Gangman from the dormant list of casual labour on 16.02.1970 and he acquired temporary status on 17.04.1986. He was sent for medical examination wherein his date of birth was furnished as 16.02.1951. Alleging that the respondent has furnished fit certificate stating his date of birth as 16.02.1957, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent and he was terminated from service on 08.03.1990. Subsequently, the respondent was reinstated in service as Substituted Gangman on 23.06.2004 and finally he retired on 28.02.2011. 3. The respondent filed OA 164 of 2011(R) seeking directions for extending pension and retiral benefits with arrears and to treat his temporary status as qualifying service for the purpose of extending pensionary benefits. 4. The Tribunal held that the respondent was in regular service from 23.06.2004 to 28.02.2011 which shall be accounted for 6 years, 6 months and 5 days. The Tribunal further observed that the period of service as temporary status i.e. from 17.04.1986 to 08.03.1990 which comes to 3 years, 10 months and 29 days if added to the regular service, the total service would be more than 10 years and therefore, the respondent would be entitled to pensionary benefits. Being aggrieved by the order passed in original application being O.A. No.164 of 2011(R), Union of India has preferred this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not kept in view Rule 20 and 21 of Master Circular No. 54 dated 30.03.1994 dealing with the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. It is submitted that as per the said Rules, the casual labours who have attained temporary status are entitled to only half of the service rendered in the capacity as temporary status can be taken into account as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. It is submitted that as per the said Rules, the casual labours who have attained temporary status are entitled to only half of the service rendered in the capacity as temporary status can be taken into account as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The learned counsel further submitted that the service of the respondent was terminated with effect from 18.03.1990 and was reinstated only in the year 2004 and while so, the break in service was not kept in view by the Tribunal and the Tribunal erred in issuing direction to take into account the service of the respondent rendered in the capacity as a temporary employee. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of General Manager, North West Railway & Ors. v. Chanda Devi [Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 2007 dated 12.12.2007] and in the case of Union of India & Ors v. K.G.Radhakrishana Panickar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 1994 & batch cases dated 28.04.1998]. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna passed in O.A. No.517 of 2006 dated 09.05.2012 [Raj Kishore Sinha v. The Union of India & Ors.]. 7. The above referred decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Union of India will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Tribunal, after careful consideration of the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 10 SCC 164 (Ram Lal v. Union of India) and the facts which are emerging from the records, has reached to the conclusion that the respondent is eligible and entitled to get the pensionary benefit on the basis of period of service rendered by him in the capacity of temporary as well as regular service. 8. We have heard the submissions of Md. A.Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent was appointed as a casual labour even in the year 1970 and his name was also found in the dormant list and he was regularly working as the casual labour and therefore as per Rule 20, half of the period of service as casual labour ought to have been taken into account for calculating the pensionary benefits of the respondent. 10. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as a casual labour on 16.02.1970 and he attained temporary status on 17.04.1986. As a casual labour the respondent had worked for more than 16 years. After the respondent was terminated from service on 08.03.1990, he was again reinstated as a Substituted Gangman on 23.06.2004 and finally retired on 28.02.2011. The period of service which he rendered in his regular service is 6 years, 6 months and 5 days (23.06.2004 to 28.02.2011). The only point to be considered is regarding the service which the respondent has rendered in the capacity as a casual labour. 11. Rule 20 of the Master Circulation No.54 dated 30.03.1994 deals with qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Rule 20 reads as under :- “20. Counting of the period of service of Casual Labour for pensionary benefits Half of the period of service of a casual labour (other than casual labour employed on Projects) after attaining of temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service if it is followed by absorption in service as regular railway employee, counts for pensionary benefits. With effect from 1.1.1981, the benefit has also been extended to Project Casual labour.” Since the respondent worked as a casual labour from 1970 to 1986, the service rendered by the respondent is to be taken into account as per Rule 20 and half of the period of service of a casual labour after attaining of temporary status are to be counted as a qualifying service for pensionary benefit. As pointed out earlier, the respondent worked as a casual labour for more than 16 years. As per Railway Pension Rules, 1950, period of service which the respondent was not on duty was treated as ‘dies non’ i.e. the same shall not be treated as qualifying service. Even though there was break in service of the respondent from 1990 to 2004 and the Tribunal has not adverted to Rule 20, we are of the view that having regard to the length of service which was rendered by the respondent, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 20. Even though there was break in service of the respondent from 1990 to 2004 and the Tribunal has not adverted to Rule 20, we are of the view that having regard to the length of service which was rendered by the respondent, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 20. That apart, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the respondent has rendered service as temporary status from 17.04.1986 to 08.03.1990 and the service rendered by the respondent in the temporary status i.e. 3 years 10 months and 29 days will also have to be taken into account and the respondent would be having more than 10 years of service and he is entitled to the pensionary benefits. 12. Rule 21 deals with some instances when periods of employment is not treated as qualifying service. Rule 21 reads as under :- “21. Some instances when periods of employment is not treated as qualifying service: (i) in a part-time capacity; (ii) at casual market rates; (iii)as an apprentice except to the extent indicated in Board’s letter No. F(E)III79 PN 1/20 dated 17.4.1984, 27.7.1984, 13.10.1986, 9.8.1986 & 14.9.1988 [Bahri’s RBO 1988-II, 231; RBE 202/88] (iv) is a non-pensionable post, (v) in a post paid from contingencies except as provided in para 409 (ii) (vi) on daily rates basis; (vii) on a contract basis except when followed by confirmation without break.” Since the respondent worked as a regular casual labour, we are of the view that he is not falling under any of the instances under Rule 21. 13. The Tribunal rightly held that the respondent had completed more than 10 years of service and he is entitled to the pensionary benefits but under wrong notion the petitioner has denied the pensionary benefits. We do not find any reason warranting interference in the order of the Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed. 14. The petitioner is directed to comply with the order and pay the pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.