ORDER : 1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ for quashing of order dated 18.07.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 in Pension/61758 by which and where under the petitioner’s prayer for counting the service of ten years at Central Water Commission, New Delhi, National Sample Survey Organization (Yojna Mantralaya) Faridabad and Central Statistic Organization, Statistic Department (Yojna Mantralaya), New Delhi for grant of pensionary benefit was refused and furthermore, petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to respondents to count the petitioner’s service from 01.05.1975 to 14.01.1985 for all pensionary and other benefits and accordingly, to make payment to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was an employee of Punjab National Bank. He joined the Punjab National Bank as Hindi Officer on 15.01.1985 and superannuated from service on 31.01.2011 from the post of Assistant Manager (Hindi) from Muzaffarpur, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank. Prior to joining in the Punjab National Bank, petitioner initially joined on 01.05.1975 as a clerk at Central Water Commission, New Delhi and remained there till 20.11.1977. Thereafter, petitioner worked from 21.11.1977 to 31.03.1981 as Hindi Translator at National Sample Survey Organization (Ministry of Planning) Faridabad and then worked as Senior Hindi Translator at Central Statistic organization, Statistics Department (Ministry of Planning), New Delhi. All the above stated appointments were made after approval of the Central Government and all the above stated posts were pensionable. Petitioner sent his application through the Deputy Secretary, Department of Statistics to the Secretary, Banking Services Recruitment Board, New Delhi for his appointment in the above stated bank in the year 1984 and accordingly, he was selected and appointed to the post of Hindi Officer at Punjab National Bank and joined as Hindi Officer at Punjab National Bank on 15.01.1985 as stated above. After his superannuation, he gave an application to the respondents for counting his previous service on the basis of Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 but respondents refused to give benefit of Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 to the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid rule is applicable only to those employees who joined service of the bank after enforcement of above stated regulation. After refusal of his prayer, petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. 3. After refusal of his prayer, petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents mentioning therein that Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Unnumbered proviso 2 of the aforesaid regulation specifically states that concession under Rule 26 of the above stated regulations is admissible, if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation. It has further been pleaded that the recruitment rules in respect of service of the petitioner as well as post of the petitioner do not contain the aforesaid conditions and, therefore, the aforesaid rule is not applicable in respect of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, prior to joining in the Punjab National Bank, petitioner worked in the different offices of Central Government and, thereafter, he sent his application to the concerned bank after proper approval of the Central Government. He further submits that admittedly, petitioner joined the concerned bank prior to coming into force of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 and, therefore, the unnumbered proviso 2 of aforesaid Rule 26 does not apply in respect of the petitioner because there is no bar in the above stated regulations to count the services of those employees, who appointed before the enforcement of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 and the respondents wrongly interpreted the above stated provision of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Bank put much emphasis upon proviso of Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 and submits that in the aforesaid proviso, it has, specifically, been mentioned that the aforesaid rule shall apply to only those employees whose recruitment rules or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of those regulations. He further submits that admittedly, the aforesaid condition is not fulfilled in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. 6. He further submits that admittedly, the aforesaid condition is not fulfilled in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Rule 26 of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. 6. Admittedly, the Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 was framed in the year 1995 and prior to implementation of the aforesaid regulation, the petitioner had already joined service in the Punjab National Bank. Here, I would like to refer Rule 26 of Chapter-IV of Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 which runs as follows:- Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances:- An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one- (a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological, or professional fields, is essential; and (b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited; (c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience: Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the Bank is not less than ten years; Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation: Provided also that the recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government. 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that benefit of Rule 26 is given to the employees in special circumstances and the aforesaid rule, specifically, stipulates some conditions for grant of above stated benefit. 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is apparent that benefit of Rule 26 is given to the employees in special circumstances and the aforesaid rule, specifically, stipulates some conditions for grant of above stated benefit. The unnumbered proviso 2, specifically, says that the aforesaid benefit shall be admissible, if the recruitment rules in respect of the service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of the said regulation. The perusal of the aforesaid proviso shows the intention of the aforesaid regulations because in proviso, it has, specifically, been mentioned that the benefit of Rule 26 can only be given to those employees whose recruitment rules or post contain specific provision for grant of benefit of above stated regulation. Therefore, it is clear that the aforesaid regulations do not intent to give benefit of Rule 26 to those employees who were appointed prior to enforcement of the aforesaid regulations. 8. Admittedly, the aforesaid condition is not fulfilled in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of Rule 26 of the above stated Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. My aforesaid view is supported by a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court pronounced on 13.02.2012 in LPA No. 1640 of 2011 (K.C. Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.). 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition and, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.