JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. This special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56161 of 2009 - Matadeen v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. 3. Brief facts in brief giving rise to aforesaid appeal are : 3.1 The petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of Peon on 9.2.1970 in fixed pay-scale in Junior High School, Pura Mohabbat, Block Baksha, Tehsil and District Jaunpur. 3.2 After appointment the petitioner-appellant had worked continuously on the said post without any break or any kind of complaint relating to the work and conduct by the authorities concerned. 3.3 The services of the petitioner-appellant has been regularised by the authorities concerned with effect from 16.8.1996. 3.4 After attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner was retired from service on 30.10.2003. 3.5 After his retirement, petitioner-appellant met the authorities concerned about his retirement claim and after great persuasion, though the respondent authorities paid the retiral dues to him yet respondent No. 3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur, had not given pensionary benefit to the petitioner-appellant. 3.6 The petitioner-appellant made several representation for providing the benefit of pension on the ground that he was continuously working on the post of Peon since 1970 to 2003 without any kind of break or any complaint by the authorities concerned against the petitioner-appellant relating to his work and conduct but even then the respondent authorities, did not provide pensionary benefit to the petitioner-appellant. 3.7 The petitioner-appellant moved civil misc. writ petition No. 15955 of 2009 which was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2009 with the direction to the authorities concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner-appellant. 3.7 The petitioner-appellant moved civil misc. writ petition No. 15955 of 2009 which was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2009 with the direction to the authorities concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner-appellant. 3.8 The petitioner-appellant thereafter moved a fresh representation, alongwith certified copy of the order passed by this Court, which was rejected by Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education vide order dated 11.8.2009 on the ground that in view of the various directions and Government Orders, the qualifying service of the petitioner-appellant was 7 years, 4 months and 10 days and according to rules, for the purpose of pension the petitioner did not complete 10 years qualifying service and therefore he would not be entitled for pension. 3.9 Challenging the order dated 11.8.2009, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 56161 of 2009, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2009. Hence this appeal. 4. The petitioner-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds : 4.1 The impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. 4.2 The petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on the post of Peon in the year 1970 on a fixed pay-scale and since then is continuously working on the said post and subsequently regularized w.e.f. 20.6.1996 and retired on 30.10.2003 but the respondent authorities have not illegally counted his entire service. 4.3 The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the nature of work of petitioner-appellant at the time when he was working on fixed pay-scale and after regularisation is the same. 4.4 Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the judgment rendered in Veerpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (4) ESC 2360 , in right perspective. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner-appellant does not fulfill the requirement for getting the pension, therefore his claim has rightly been rejected. He has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006(3) ESC 2248 . 6. The impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is short one, which reads thus : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel as well as perused the record. He has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006(3) ESC 2248 . 6. The impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is short one, which reads thus : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel as well as perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits including retiral benefits which have been extended to him as his services stood regularized. The petitioner had earlier come to this Court which was disposed of on 1st April 2009 directing the Basic Education Officer to decide the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner has been considered in detail and it has been found that in view of the circular issued to the authority concerned dated 17.6.09 the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits as a regular employee provided he fulfills the eligibility criteria. The decision of the competent authority indicates that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualifying years of services that are required for receiving the pension inasmuch as qualifying years of services come to 7 years 4 months and 10 days only. The Rule relating to pension requires that the employee should have completed at least 10 years of qualifying services. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that in view of the Division Bench judgment, in the case of Bansh Gopal v. State of U.P., 2006 (3) ESC 2248 , the eligibility is to exist for receiving the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the decision in the case of Veerpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (4) ESC 2360 , to urge that the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits. I have perused the said judgment. In the aforesaid cases the requirement which was considered was the continuance of a temporary employee for a long period. This Court following the Division Bench decision in the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay came to the conclusion that this benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioner on the facts found therein. But the aforesaid decisions are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as pension is a matter of Rule. This Court following the Division Bench decision in the case of Prasidh Narain Upadhyay came to the conclusion that this benefit deserves to be extended to the petitioner on the facts found therein. But the aforesaid decisions are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as pension is a matter of Rule. If the qualifying years of services are clearly prescribed the same cannot be ignored for the purpose of granting benefits which otherwise is not admissible to the petitioner.” The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.” 7. The Division Bench of this Court in Bansh Gopal (supra) has held that service in regular establishment will only qualify in view of Regulations 368 and 370 of Civil Service Regulations. Regulations 368 and 370 of Civil Service Regulations read as under: “368. Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. 370.Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify except- (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishment ; (ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment, and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.” 8. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by another Division Bench in State of U.P. v. Ram Pratap Shukla, 2008(6) ADJ 753 . Above view is also reiterated in Writ Petition No. 895 of 2004 (Gambhir Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15.1.2007 and Writ Petition No. 43822 of 2008 (Bhuneshwar Rai v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 3.3.2011. 9. In some of the matters, to wriggle out of the consequence of Regulation 370 of Civil Service Regulations, the vires was also challenged and the same has been discussed in detail and negatived by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23873 of 2011 (Shri Rama Shankar Pandey (Seenchpal) v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 31.7.2013 wherein it has been categorically held that statutory provisions as exist and applicable till date, in respect of Government servants, do not provide pension for work charge employees since work charge establishment itself has been made a non pensionable establishment. 10. It is not disputed that the petitioner-appellant was regularized in the year 1996 and he retired on 30.10.2003 after rendering service of about seven years in regular establishment. 10. It is not disputed that the petitioner-appellant was regularized in the year 1996 and he retired on 30.10.2003 after rendering service of about seven years in regular establishment. Admittedly, under the Rules, he has not put in qualifying period of service to receive pension and other retiral benefits.” 11. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and exposition of law, we find that learned Single Judge, after considering the judgment relied on by the counsel for the parties, has rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner-appellant is not entitled for the pensionary benefits. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and are not inclined to take a different view. 13. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 14. There is no order as to costs. ———————