JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. The appellant had worked as a work charged employee and it was only on 3 March 1994 that he was regularized in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025. He retired on 31 January 1998. The total period of work rendered was three years, ten months and twenty seven days. The period of work rendered as work charged employee could not be computed for the purpose of Article 370 of the Civil Services Regulations. The appellant having put in less than the required years of pensionable service, the learned Single Judge, in our view, dismissed the writ petition with justification. 2. The view of the learned Single Judge is consistent with the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (8) ADJ 664 and in a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (2) AWC 1771 , where it has been held that the work charged employees constitute a distinct class and cannot be equated with regular employees and in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in Article 370 of the Civil Services Regulations, the period spent as work charged employee would not be counted towards pensionable service. 3. The learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record the order passed by the Supreme Court confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash (supra). The order of the Supreme Court passed on 5 September 2014 in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12648 of 2014 reads as under: "There is nothing on the record to suggest that any Rule or Scheme framed by the State to count the work-charge period for the purpose of pension in the regular establishment. In absence, of any such Rule or Scheme, we find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed." 4. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.