JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. By means of instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner after waiving deficiency of about 3 months in counting 10 years regular service towards qualifying service and allow him monthly pension as well as other post retiral benefits on the basis thereof. 2. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was engaged in the year 1976 on the post of seasonal collection peon (Class-IV post) in Tehsil Kadipur District Sultanpur. The opposite parties prepared a list of seasonal collection peon on 29.05.1984, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at sl. no. 18. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that despite long services rendered by the petitioner, when the opposite parties did not regularize the services of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 5835 (SB) of 1992 (Chandresh Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court by means of judgment and order dated 05.09.1992 allowed the said writ petition in the light of the judgment and order dated 22.07.1992 passed in a similar writ petition No. 6860 of 1989. The services of petitioners were regularized vide order dated 28.03.2001 in compliance of the judgment and order dated 05.09.1992 after a long gap of 10 years. 3. The petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years, retired from the service on 31.12.2010 but he was not paid pension and other post retiral dues on account of the fact that the petitioner has not completed 10 years qualifying services. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition specifically mentioned that other petitioners of Writ Petition No. 6860 of 1989 namely S/Sri Chandresh Lal, Ram Kishore Shukla, Ram Prasad Mishra and Ram Yagya Pandey were regularized along with petitioner on 28.03.2001 and rendered less than 10 years of regular service, have been paid pension and other service benefits. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the order of regularization dated 28.03.2001, the name of petitioner finds place at sl. no.5, whereas the name of Sri Ram Kishore Shukla finds place at sl. no.8, even then he has been given pension and other post retiral benefits. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the order of regularization dated 28.03.2001, the name of petitioner finds place at sl. no.5, whereas the name of Sri Ram Kishore Shukla finds place at sl. no.8, even then he has been given pension and other post retiral benefits. In proof of the same, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the PPO order of Sri Ram Kishore Shukla along with his rejoinder affidavit. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that as per Article 468 of the U.P. Civil Services Regulations, it has been provided that for the purposes of calculating the length of qualifying service, fractions of a half year equal to three months and above is to be treated as a complete one half year and reckoned as qualifying service. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that this issue was examined by this Court in writ petition no. 3147(SS) of 2007 (Algoo Ram vs. State of U.P. and others) and the High Court while quashing the order impugned in the writ petition also issued a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of regular pension, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment of Algoo Ram (supra) where the pension and other benefits were paid on the ground of deficiency of three months service in the qualifying service of 10 years. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has also pointed out a decision of this Court passed in writ petition no. 2637 (SS) of 2009 (Mohd. Mustafa vs. State of U.P. and others)? where the benefits were denied on account of shortcoming of 6 months service in the qualifying service and direction was issued to pay pension and other post retiral benefits vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2009 passed in writ petition no.2637 (SS) of 2009. 7. It has also been mentioned by learned counsel for petitioner that against the said judgment, Special Appeal bearing No. 722 of 2009 filed by the State, was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2013 against which Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC-17403 of 2013was dismissed by the apex court vide order dated 07.10.2013. 8. 7. It has also been mentioned by learned counsel for petitioner that against the said judgment, Special Appeal bearing No. 722 of 2009 filed by the State, was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2013 against which Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC-17403 of 2013was dismissed by the apex court vide order dated 07.10.2013. 8. In this back-ground, submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the provision of Article 468 of U.P. Civil Services Regulations, is very clear and the services rendered by the petitioner of 9 years 9 months and 3 days which is less than 2 months 27 days of qualifying services of 10 year, is to be treated as completion of qualifying service. 9. Learned standing counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that petitioner's regular services are less than 10 years and as per Government order No. sa-3-1713/dus-87-933/89 dated 28.07.1989 minimum required regular service for grant of pension to any employee is 10 years, as such the petitioner is not entitled for pension and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for rival parties and gone through the record. 11. Admittedly the petitioner was engaged as collection peon (Class-IV post) in the year 1976 and despite direction of this Court in writ petition No. 5835 (SB) of 1992 (Chandresh Lal and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and others) the candidature of petitioner for regularization of services was considered and vide order dated 28.03.2001 his services were regularized. It appears that the persons regularized along with petitioner, having less than 10 years qualifying service to their credit have been given pension. The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the PPO in respect of one Ram Kishore Shukla, whose name was at sl. no.8 of the regularization order dated 28.03.2001. This Court in the Writ Petition No. 3147 (SS) of 2007? The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the PPO in respect of one Ram Kishore Shukla, whose name was at sl. no.8 of the regularization order dated 28.03.2001. This Court in the Writ Petition No. 3147 (SS) of 2007? (Algoo Ram vs. State of U.P. and others) examined the provision of Article 468 of U.P. Civil Services Regulations and observed that "a plain reading of regulation 468 reveals that in case the period of 10 years is lesser by only three months, then it will be treated as sufficient period for the purpose of calculation of regular pension, meaning thereby that only because the period of 10 years is not complete for short of service to the tune of three months, the respondents have no right to deny the payment of regular pension to the petitioner". 12. Appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for parties this court finds that the petitioner's deficiency, in qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits, which is less than three months is liable to be condoned in view of provision of Article 468 of U.P. Civil Services Regulations. 13. Accordingly a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension and other retiral dues from the date of his superannuation and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served. 14. Subject to aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.