JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner herein claims to have been appointed on Daily Wages as Beldar on Muster Roll basis in the year 1977-73. He claims that on 26.06.1997 his services were regularised in terms of the then existing Regularization Rules. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service of the opposite parties on 30.04.2007. As the regular services rendered by him, which alone have been counted for the purposes of calculation of the qualifying services for determination of pension payable, was only nine years, ten months, five days, therefore, he has been held to be dis entitled to such pension and has not been paid the same. As per the facts narrated by the petitioner, he fell short of the required qualifying services of 10 years only by one month and about twenty five days. 3. It is rather strange that such matters are coming up before this Court for consideration despite there being a specific provision under the said Service Regulation i.e. Regulation 468 which deals with such a situation and allows a period of service more than three months to be counted as six months. 4. The concerned authority while passing the impugned order dated 05.07.2014 has rightly stated that the services rendered on work charged basis can not be counted for the purposes of calculation of qualifying services, but has omitted to consider the provisions of Regulation 468 of the Civil Service Regulations which provides that the amount of pension that may be granted is determined by length of service. In calculating the length of qualifying service, fractions of a half year equal to three month and above shall be treated as a complete one-half year and reckoned as qualifying service. 5. In the light of the said provision, as the petitioner had put in 9 years 10 months and 5 days in service, fraction of a half year above three months is four months and 5 days, therefore, the case appears to be covered by Regulation 468 and the said period is liable to be treated as complete one-half year, which, if the facts as stated by the petitioner are correct, entitle the petitioner to ten years qualifying service for pension, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered while passing the impugned order. 6. 6. In view of the above, though in view of the Division Bench judgment rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 23 of 2014 reported in (2015) 8 ADJ 716 the services rendered by the petitioner as a muster-roll or work-charge employee cannot be counted for the purposes of calculating the qualifying service for pension, nevertheless, he is entitled to be considered for the benefit of the provisions contained in Regulation 468 of the Civil Service Regulations. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority for taking a fresh decision in terms of the observations made herein above within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Consequences as regards payment of pension and other post-retirement benefits shall follow as per rules based on the decision so taken. 7. It is open for the petitioner to claim interest on the amount of pension payable if the delay is on account of the opposite parties by approaching the appropriate forum as and when the cause of action arises. 8. Considering the fact that such petitions are coming up before this Court everyday, let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U.P. and Principal Secretary, Karmik as also to the Principal Secretary, Finance for ensuring compliance of the said provision at the time of calculation of qualifying service of Government servants who are due to retire or have retired so that they may not be compelled to approach this Court unnecessarily. 9. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.