JUDGMENT : 1. Leave to amend the reliefs sought is hereby granted. Let appropriate amendments be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 3. This petition seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine, compute and release the pension of the petitioner with effect from 20th December 1990, being the date of his initial appointment on the post of Collection Peon. The issue itself arises in the following background facts. 4. Although it is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in service on the post of Collection Pension on 20th December 1990, his initial appointment was on a temporary basis albeit on a regular pay scale. The services of the petitioner ultimately came to be regularised on 13th August 2002. Appended along with the writ petition is a report in terms of which it was recommended that the petitioner be regularised in service which was also duly approved by the District Magistrate. On attaining the age of superannuation on 30th October 2015, his pension papers are stated to have been drawn up by the Department and in these papers also his date of regular appointment was shown as 20th December 1990. However, the second respondent vide his communication dated 4th March 2016 raised an objection that since the petitioner was regularised only on 13th August 2002, the pension proposal would have to be amended/revised. 5. Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has principally argued that the period of qualifying service must necessarily be computed in accordance with the provisions made in Regulations 368 and 370 of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P. According to Sri Mishra although the petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary basis, his appointment was not on a non-pensionable establishment. According to him, the temporary service which ultimately stood confirmed would clearly entitle the petitioner to seek the computation of pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment, namely, 20th December 1990. Sri Mishra has also sought to draw sustenance from a decision rendered by a Division Bench in Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. According to him, the temporary service which ultimately stood confirmed would clearly entitle the petitioner to seek the computation of pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment, namely, 20th December 1990. Sri Mishra has also sought to draw sustenance from a decision rendered by a Division Bench in Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8) ADJ 376 in which the following observations came to be made: “The qualifying service, as defined in sub-rule (8) of Rule 3, includes the service, which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Section 368 of Civil Services Regulation. The petitioner does not fall in any of the exceptions inasmuch as the period of his temporary service was not in a non-pensionable establishment after he was regularized in the State Government. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionary service with effect from the date of his joining in the State Government on his option, and which shall be treated as service qualifying for pension and for which under the Government Orders, by which the hospitals were provincialised, the contribution of his pension has been deposited by the Zila Parishad.” 7. Sri Mishra has also drawn the attention of the Court to yet another decision of a Division Bench rendered subsequently in which judgment Dr. Amrendra Nath Srivastava was duly noticed and approved. Sri Mishra has in this behalf referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Dr. Prem Chandra Pathak And Another Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, Writ A No.-27579 of 2014, decided on 16 May 2014. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has on the other hand countered the submissions by contending that temporary service would not qualify for the purposes of computation of pensionable benefits since it cannot be said that the petitioner held a substantive office. According to the learned Standing Counsel the period of temporary or officiating service is specifically excluded under Regulation 370 and therefore the petitioner’s pensionable benefits would have to be computed with effect from 13thAugust 2002 and this date alone being recognised as the starting point. 9. Having noticed the rival submissions, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. 10. 9. Having noticed the rival submissions, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. 10. As is evident from a reading of Regulations 368 and 370, service, which is liable to be excluded, is that which is spent by an employee when holding a non-substantive office and in an establishment, which is other than permanent. Although the petitioner was initially engaged on a temporary basis, it is not the stand of the State that this temporary appointment was not against a substantive office. The Court further take into consideration the fact that the substantive office was held in an establishment which was pensionable and that it is not the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the office to which a collection peon stands attached is an establishment which is temporary or other than permanent. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel, resting upon the provisions of Regulation 370 proceed without noticing that the period of temporary service or officiating service is liable to be excluded only in case it is spent in a non pensionable establishment. Regulation 370 reads thus: “370. Continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruptions 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 form contingencies.” As is evident from a bare reading of the said provision the only classes of service that are excluded are temporary or officiating service: - (a) in a non-pensionable establishment, (b) in a work charged establishment and (c) on a post paid from contingencies. 11. From the narration of facts it is clear that the petitioner’s service albeit on a temporary basis as a Collection Peon cannot be said or recognised to have been spent in either a non-pensionable establishment or a work charged establishment. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner as Collection Peon was paid from contingencies. As was held by the Division Bench in Dr. Amrendra Nath Srivastava, it is only in a case where the temporary service is spent in the categories specifically enumerated in Regulation 370 that the same would be liable to be excluded. 12. As was held by the Division Bench in Dr. Amrendra Nath Srivastava, it is only in a case where the temporary service is spent in the categories specifically enumerated in Regulation 370 that the same would be liable to be excluded. 12. On an overall consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the objection as raised by the second respondent in its order dated 4th March 2016. 13. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 4th March 2016 is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 3 is hereby commanded to redraw the pension papers of the petitioner and forward the same to the Additional Director, the second respondent herein. The Additional Director shall ensure that these papers are processed in accordance with the observations made hereinabove and the entire exercise of computation and sanction of pension completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of papers from the District Magistrate. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits pursuant to the exercise of recomputation which shall now be undertaken.