ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. Petitioners are the authorities managed by the Union of India which has approached this Court against the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in OA No. 30 of 2021. 2. Respondent was contractual employee whose claim is allowed by the Tribunal directing the present petitioners to re-examine the case in light of the directions issued by this Court in case of Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 3. Respondent was working as General Assistant for program section i.e. Typing contract, queue sheet of programme etc. as daily wager with the petitioner-institute. He along with the other similarly situated employees approached the Tribunal for claim of regular wages by way of OA No. 32 of 1987. This was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 30th August, 1990. OA No. 486 of 1989, 492 of 1989 and 489 of 1989 had been preferred for seeking regularization of services of employees and they were regularized against the sanctioned vacant post by virtue of the Central Government decision dated 16.11.1994. 4. It is not in dispute that the applicant worked as casual labourer from 7.9.1985 and came to be regularized on regular establishment on 12.5.1995 The similarly situated applicants have approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA No. 446 of 2014. The decision has come against the department which was challenged by such application in Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021. This Court allowed the petition which is challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is pending. 5. Thus, the department is before this Court seeking issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, to set aside the judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29th April, 2022 in OA No. 30 of 2021. 6. We have heard learned Standing Counsel Ms. Krishna Raval who has fervently urged that the SLP preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021 is still pending. At that stage to direct the petitioners to count the temporary service for the purpose of calculating qualifying services in accordance with rule is not desirable. 7. Krishna Raval who has fervently urged that the SLP preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021 is still pending. At that stage to direct the petitioners to count the temporary service for the purpose of calculating qualifying services in accordance with rule is not desirable. 7. We have noticed the challenge before the learned Tribunal in the order impugned, where, the original application has been allowed by directing the respondent to re-examine the claim of the applicant in case of Smt. Magi (M.H.Desai) w/o. Hasmukhbhai Desai within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. According to learned Standing Counsel, this order is a cryptic order without supplying any reasons and details. She has also emphasized that when the matter is pending before the Apex Court for admission, no point will be served to undergo this ordeal as there is likelihood of some change as well. 9. According to us, this Court has decided the very issue in Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021 on 17th February, 2022 in the case of Smt. Magi (M.H.Desai) W/o. Hasmukh Desai Vs. The Director General, where the facts of the case are identical to the one which is on hand. We noticed that there was yet another matter which has been referred to by this Court to hold that the services rendered on contractual basis shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service in accordance with the Rule 13 of The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 10. We noticed that the applicant had been denied the claim for counting his contractual service as qualifying service and consequently the regularization of services was denied. This Court, while considering the total qualifying service has regarded the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as Rule 13 of the said rules deal with the period of commencement of qualifying service. Reading of Rule 13 itself indicates that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date of taking charge of the post on which the person was first appointed. First Proviso to Rule 13 also provides that such temporary service should have been followed by the substantive appointment without any interruption. 11. Reading of Rule 13 itself indicates that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date of taking charge of the post on which the person was first appointed. First Proviso to Rule 13 also provides that such temporary service should have been followed by the substantive appointment without any interruption. 11. The relevant findings of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021 are as under:- “5. Noticing the relevant Rules from Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which would govern the entitlement of the petitioner about the total qualifying service, Rule 13 deals with commencement of qualifying service. “13. Commencement of qualifying service.-Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post: Provided further that (a) In the case of a Government servant in a Group ‘D’ (b) In the case of a Government servant not covered by Clause (a), … … “5.1 Rule 14 is also relevant which provides for conditions subject to which service would qualify. The said Rule is also reproduced. “14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies: 1. The service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. 2. For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the expression “Service” means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government. 3. 2. For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the expression “Service” means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government. 3. In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government is an officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under the Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply.” 5.2 Bare reading of Rule 13 indicates that qualifying service of a government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge on the post on which he first appointed. It takes the date of such appointment either substantively made or in officiating basis or appointment in temporary capacity. First Proviso to Rule 13 says that temporary service should follow without interruption by substantive appointment. In the present case, temporary service of the petitioner has followed to become the order of substantive appointment. 5.3 The services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary servants such as casual or even contractual. There would be no gainsaying that contractual employee would be qualified as service in temporary capacity. The petitioner was on contractual basis, satisfied the criteria under Rule 13 as regards the commencement of qualifying service for pension. 5.4 Rule 14 lays down conditions on which the service would qualify. These conditions are that the duties and pay due to the employees are regulated by the government, service must be under the government, and in case of government servant belonging to any State Government who is permanently transferred to service or post to which Rules apply, continuous service rendered under the State Government in officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without any interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered in any officiating or temporary capacity. What is to be noticed from this particular condition in Rule 14 is that it also takes into consideration the aspect of rendering service in officiating or temporary capacity followed without interruption and substantive appointment. When repeatedly asked as to which of the condition is not satisfied in the case of the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent was entirely at his receiving end. 6. With the above position obtaining from reading of the Rules 13 and 14, adverting to the reasons supplied by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was heavily leaned on the aspect of the Scheme of 1992/94 to observe that the Scheme did not provide consideration of casual service for pension benefit. While on one hand order dated 10th April, 1995 regularising the service of the petitioner does not refer to the aspect that petitioner’s regularisation was under the Scheme, was pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. Be as it may. 6.1 Otherwise also, even if it is assumed that the Scheme has such a condition, in light of Rule 13 for counting the qualifying services which unequivocally contemplate temporary service as part of the qualifying service, the Scheme cannot be an impediment in law in accepting the entitlement of the petitioner. The Scheme was for regularisation in service. Grant of pensionary benefit would flow from the relevant Rules, that is Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. At the cost of reiteration, it is to be stated that Rule 13 in terms provide that the qualifying service shall commence from the date the employee was appointed on temporary capacity. 6.2 The Tribunal harped in its reasoning that engagement of the petitioner was on contractual basis and it was not against any sanctioned post, therefore counting of that service as a part of qualifying service would not be an admissible claim. In view of the provisions of the Rules, it is not possible to countenance the reasoning of the Tribunal and its decision to confirm the refusal. 12. It is of course a matter of record that the challenge is made to this decision before the Hon’ble Apex Court, as the Diary number is shared with the Court which is given on 5th July, 2022 being No. 19732/2022, where the status/stage is of pendency for fresh admission. 12. It is of course a matter of record that the challenge is made to this decision before the Hon’ble Apex Court, as the Diary number is shared with the Court which is given on 5th July, 2022 being No. 19732/2022, where the status/stage is of pendency for fresh admission. This status will not automatic stay the ratio laid down by this Court, which is a binding decision so far as petitioners are concerned, unless there is stay granted for implementation of directions issued by this Court. This status received from the official website of the Supreme Court of India will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. However, a request is made by Ms. Krishna Raval, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners to allow her to pursue this matter on account of pendency before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, it goes without specifying that any action on the part of petitioners would be subject to the decision of the pending matter before the Apex Court, considering the decision already rendered by this Court more particularly when no order is received in pending matter. The directions issued by the Tribunal are innocuous. As what all the tribunal has done is to simply follow the directions of this Court in another matter being Special Civil Application No. 14592 of 2021. 13. Hence, present petition being identical to the one decided by this Court and directions issued are on following the binding decision, no interference is warranted.