JUDGMENT : Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Shri Yogendra Mishra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 20874 (S/S) of 2021 pleading that he had started his service on the post of Collection Amin w.e.f. 09.02.1959 and he was confirmed on the said post in the year 1966. On 27.02.1976, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Apar Tehsildar and while working on the aforesaid post, he retired on 31.07.1993. The petitioner was getting pension from the date of retirement, i.e. 01.08.1993 but by means of an order dated 16.05.2018 his pension was reduced from Rs.21,150/- to Rs.18,587/-. According to the appellant-petitioner, he had completed 33 years, 6 months and 90 days in service, but his pension was revised treating his length of service to be 29 years and it was reduced accordingly. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to calculate his period of service by adding the period of service rendered by him as Collection Amin w.e.f. 09.02.1959 to 1966. 3. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by means of a judgement and order dated 17.09.2021 holding that the appellant-petitioner was appointed on the post of Collection Amin w.e.f. 09.02.1959 but his services were regularized only in the year 1966. The post of Collection Amin is a seasonal post and it was not a regular post and, therefore, the competent authority has rightly not counted the services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.09.2021, the appellant has filed this intra court appeal mainly on the ground that he was initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin against a substantive vacancy w.e.f. 09.02.1959 and his services were confirmed in the year 1966 and that period rendered by the petitioner in service before his regularization cannot be ignored for granting him pension. 5. 5. The State has filed a counter affidavit in the Special Appeal stating that in view of the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021), the appellant is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the writ petition and the writ petition has rightly been dismissed upon the finding that the petitioner was regularized only in the year 1966 and, therefore, the competent authority has rightly not counted the period of services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization. 6. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that by means of the Government Orders dated 18.07.2017 and 04.09.2017, directions were issued for revision of pension upto the year 2016. Accordingly, the Pension Sanctioning Officer has fixed the pension of the petitioner-appellant and issued a revised sanction letter and in furtherance thereof, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh by the letter dated 21.02.2018 has sent the pay revision of the petitioner-appellant to the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, by the order dated 10.03.2018, the petitioner's pension was fixed and a revised authorization letter was issued by the Board of Revenue on 10.03.2018. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and others), (2019) 10 SCC 516 , in which it has been held that : "34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 35. In view of the Note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook." 8. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant stands on a better footing compared to persons employed on daily wages or on work charge basis. 9. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant stands on a better footing compared to persons employed on daily wages or on work charge basis. 9. Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 contained the following provision in respect of qualifying service:- “3. In these rules, unless is anything repugnant in the subject or context— (1)-(7) * * * (8) “Qualifying service” means service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Services Regulations: Provided that continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post except— (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment; (ii) periods of service in a work-charged establishment; and (iii) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies shall also count as qualifying service. Note.—If service rendered in a non-pensionable establishment work-charged establishment or in a post paid from contingencies falls between two periods of temporary service in a pensionable establishment or between a period of temporary service and permanent service in a pensionable establishment, it will not constitute an interruption of service.” 10. As per Regulation 352 of the Civil Service Regulations, pension is inadmissible in the following cases : "(a) When an officer is appointed for a limited time only or a specified duty, on the completion of which he is to be discharged. (b) When a person is employed temporarily on monthly wages without specified limit of time or duty, but a month's notice of discharge should be given to such a person, and his wages must be paid for any period by which such notice falls short of a month. (c) When a person's whole-time is not retained for the public service, but he is merely paid for work done for the State. (d) When a public servant hold some other pensionable office he earns no pension in respect of an office of the kind mentioned in clause (c) or in respect of duties paid for by a Local Allowance. (e) When an officer servers under a covenant which contains no stipulation regarding pension, unless the State Government specially authorities an officer to count such service towards pension." 11. (e) When an officer servers under a covenant which contains no stipulation regarding pension, unless the State Government specially authorities an officer to count such service towards pension." 11. However, now the Government has enacted "The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021)" and the Statement of Object and Reasons of the aforesaid Act states that "Pension and gratuity admissible to a retired Government servant are determined in relation to the length of qualifying service of the Government servant. Although the term “Qualifying Service” is described in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Regulation and the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, however the definition of the said term is open to subjective interpretation which leads to administrative difficulties. It has, therefore, been decided to make a law defining the term “Qualifying Service” and to validate such definition with effect from April 1, 1961 which is the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961." 12. Sections 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Act are being reproduced below:- "2. Qualifying Service for Pension.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, regulation or Government order for the purposes of entitlement of pension to an officer, “Qualifying Service” means the services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post in accordance with the provisions of the service rules prescribed by the Government for the post. 3. Validation.—Notwithstanding any Judgment, decree or order of any Court, anything done or purporting to have been done and any action taken or purporting to have been taken under or in relation to sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be and always to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act and to be and always to have been valid as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times with effect from April 1, 1961." 13. A Seasonal Collection Amin is appointed for a limited time only for a specified duty, on the completion of which he is discharged. Duty performed as a Seasonal Collection Amin intermittently, will not fall within the category "continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh" within the purview of Rule 352 (a) of the Civil Service Regulations reproduced above. Duty performed as a Seasonal Collection Amin intermittently, will not fall within the category "continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh" within the purview of Rule 352 (a) of the Civil Service Regulations reproduced above. It will also not fall within the purview of "services rendered by an officer appointed on a temporary or permanent post" occurring in Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 2021. Therefore, the service rendered by petitioner as seasonal collection Amin cannot be added while computing qualifying service as defined under Article 361 of Civil Service Regulation or Section 2 of The Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service of Pension and Validation Act, 2021. 14. In Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (Supra) the employee concerned was appointed as a welder in the year 1965 in a work-charged establishment. He was transferred from one place to another and thereafter ultimately the Selection Committee recommended for regularisation of his services. His services were regularised on 13-03-2002 and was posted as pump operator in the regular establishment. He superannuated on 31-01-2007. Then he filed a writ petition in the High Court on 31-07-2008 to count the period spent in the work-charged establishment as qualifying service under the Rules of 1965. In the present case, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that prior to his regularization in the year 1966, the Appellant was being engaged as seasonal collection Amin, on a seasonal basis and not on regular basis and the competent authority has rightly not counted the services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization for the purposes of pension. Therefore, the law laid down in Prem Singh does not apply to the present case. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 17-09-2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 20874 (S/S) of 2021 needs no interference in this intra Court Appeal. 16. The Special Appeal lacks merits and is, dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.