ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the retiral benefits of pension, commutation of pension and gratuity etc. for the entire period of service i.e. 7.8.1964 to 31.7.2002. 2. The petitioner initially served with the Sardar Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur from 8.8.1964 to 1.1.1985. By order dated 3.12.1984 (Annex.P/1), the petitioner was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Geography by the respondent - University on probation for one year. The service was confirmed by order dated 16.1.1986 (Annex.P/3). 3. Whereafter, after serving with the University, when the petitioner was nearing his retirement, by communication dated 26.6.2002 (Annex.P/7), the Registrar (T) required the petitioner to deposit own P.F. contribution and interest for the period of 8.8.1964 to 1.1.1985 for the pension purposes. 4. The petitioner vide receipt dated 16.7.2002 deposited a sum of Rs. 48,171/-, which included amount of C.P.F. Rs. 7,697/- and interest Rs. 40,474/-. By bill dated 20.5.2003 for claim of gratuity, signed by the Dean, the service of the petitioner rendered at Sardar Senior Secondary School was also taken into consideration. 5. Though the petitioner retired on 31.7.2002, however, when the petitioner was not paid pension/other retiral benefits and, therefore, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 6. By order dated 13.12.2010, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension for the period, the petitioner remained in service with the University i.e. from 2.6.1985 to 31.7.2002 and the respondents were further directed to pay month to month pension. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the petitioner was paid pension based on his service rendered with the University. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not counting the service rendered by the petitioner with previous employer i.e. Sardar Senior Secondary School for the period 8.8.1964 to 1.1.1985 is not justified, inasmuch as, the respondents themselves by communication dated 26.6.2002 (Annex.P./7) required the petitioner to deposit his own P.F. contribution along with interest for the period of his previous employment for pension purposes, which amount was duly deposited and as such the University is now estopped from contending otherwise. 8. 8. Further submissions have been made that as per notification dated 6.10.1995 issued by the University, which has been referred in the communication dated 26.6.2002 (Annex.P/7), the petitioner was entitled for counting of his previous service. It was submitted that once the amount was accepted by the respondents and the bill dated 20.5.2003 for claim of gratuity (Annex.P/12) was prepared by the respondents, there was no reason for the respondents to refuse the grant of pension by taking into consideration the services rendered with the previous employer and, therefore, the action of the respondents be set aside and they be directed to count the service of the petitioner rendered with the previous employer for the purpose of pension. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University submitted that in terms of the Regulation 22 and 23 of Pension Regulations, 1990 & General Provident Fund Regulations, 1990 of the University, a paid service of a regularly appointed employee under the University and employment in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity only qualifies for pension. 10. It is further submitted that the notification dated 6.10.1995 only provides for counting of prior services rendered with the Rajasthan Government for the purpose of pension and as the petitioner had not served either under the University or under the Rajasthan Government during his previous employment, the petitioner is not entitled for counting of his past services. 11. Submissions were also made that though the communication dated 26.6.2002 (Annex.P/7) was issued and pursuant thereto the petitioner had deposited the amount, the said amount has been refunded back to the petitioner in the year 2004 itself along with amount due to him in terms of the service rendered by him. It is submitted that the communication was de hors the provisions of Regulation and, therefore, the same cannot bind the University and, consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. It is not in dispute that the previous employment of the petitioner from 8.8.1964 to 1.1.1985 was with the Sardar Senior Secondary School, which employment was neither under the University nor under the State Government. 14. Regulation 22 and 23 of Pension Regulations 1990 reads as under:- "22. 13. It is not in dispute that the previous employment of the petitioner from 8.8.1964 to 1.1.1985 was with the Sardar Senior Secondary School, which employment was neither under the University nor under the State Government. 14. Regulation 22 and 23 of Pension Regulations 1990 reads as under:- "22. Conditions of Qualifying Service: The service of an employee does not qualify for pension unless it confirms to the following conditions: (1) It is paid service of a regularly appointed employee under the University. (2) The employment is in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity. 23. (a) The Service of an employee transferred from a temporary to permanent post shall be counted, if the post was at first created experimentally or temporarily. (b) The officiating services of an employee, without a substantive appointment, in a post which is vacant or the permanent incumbent of which does not draw any part of the pay or count service, shall be counted if he is confirmed without interruption in his service." 15. The notification dated 6.10.1995 to the extent the same has been relied on by the petitioner and the respondent - University reads as under:- "Resolved that the period of service rendered by the University employee, prior to their absorption in the University shall be counted as service qualifying for pension under the University's pension Rules." ........... ........... "RESOLVED FURTHER that the University Contribution towards PF be also made as soon as the concerned employees give their contribution of their P.F. for the period of temporary Service with annual compound interest @ 6% to the University P.F. Fund. The Services rendered by the employees prior to their joining the University in the Government of Rajasthan will be governed by the letter No. F.3(4) Edu.IV/91 dated 25.3.1995 of the Rajasthan Government for the purpose of pension." (emphasis supplied) 16. A bare perusal of the above Regulations and notification would indicate that for the purpose of qualifying service, the service rendered under the University in whatever capacity, the employee might have served and previous employment under the Rajasthan Government, can be counted for the purposes of qualifying service. 17. A bare perusal of the above Regulations and notification would indicate that for the purpose of qualifying service, the service rendered under the University in whatever capacity, the employee might have served and previous employment under the Rajasthan Government, can be counted for the purposes of qualifying service. 17. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the part of notification 6.10.1995 (quoted supra) is concerned, it would be noticed that the said resolution pertains to services rendered prior to 'absorption' in the University, admittedly, the petitioner was 'appointed' vide order dated 3.12.1984 (Annex.P/1) as Assistant Professor in Geography and the same is not a case of absorption as such the notification has no application to petitioner's case. 18. In view thereof, as the petitioner did not qualify in terms of Regulations 22 and 23 as well as the notification dated 6.10.1995, the issuance of communication dated 26.6.2002 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount, which amount was deposited by the petitioner by itself cannot create an estoppel against the respondents so as to seek a direction from the Court to the respondents to act against the Regulations/notification issued in this regard. 19. So far as the preparation of the bill dated 20.5.2003 (Annex.P/12) for claim of gratuity is concerned, the same bears signatures of the Dean and Head of the Department only and the same has apparently not been singed by the Assistant Registrar (Accounts) and Finance Officer as the University had taken a stand that the past service of the petitioner rendered with the Sardar Senior Secondary School cannot be counted. 20. Admittedly, amount of Rs. 48,171/- deposited by the petitioner has been refunded back to the petitioner, which aspect is reflected from the letter (Annex.R/2) filed by the respondents on the record. 21. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.