P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal No. 744 of 2021 filed on behalf of the State in which appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2021 passed in CWJC No. 18826 of 2018*. Grievance of the respondents no. 1 to 6 in the writ petition are as under:— “That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the past services of petitioners rendered in non-Gazetted Capacity for pension and gratuity after superannuation from Government Service they discharged duties for more than 30 years and be further pleased to quash the Memo No. 6632(S) 28.08.2018 (Annexure-18) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the order/direction dated 02.05.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14304 of 2015 (Annexure-15) has been misinterpreted and refused to follow the direction for payment of pension and other retiral dues to retired employees under Rule 59 of Bihar Pension Rule 1950 including the Government decision contained in Memo No. Pen-1024/69/11779-F dated 12.08.1969 and arbitrarily and unlawfully rejected and disposed of the representation filed by the petitioners on 17.05.2018 in pursuant to Hon’ble Court’s direction dated 02.05.2018.” 2. The learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition while taking note of certain decisions like Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2015 (2) PLJR (SC) 437 [: 2015 (2) BLJ 108 (SC)]. The grievance of the contesting respondents are that they were initially appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1984 and their services were regularized in the month of October, 2013. Pursuant to the State Government policy decision dated 16.03.2006. For non consideration of contesting respondents grievance relating to counting of service rendered as a daily wager during the period from the year 1984 to 2013 has been turned down on 28.08.2018, thus the writ petition CWJC No. 18826 of 2018 was filed. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition while redressing the grievance of the contesting respondents to the extent that they are entitle to count daily wage service towards fixation of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition while redressing the grievance of the contesting respondents to the extent that they are entitle to count daily wage service towards fixation of pension. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that daily wagers are not entitled to count their service or compute the service towards fixation of pension in the light of provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, scheme of regularisation dated 16.03.2006 read with clause imposed in the order of regularisation dated 30.10.2013 (petitioners regularisation). It is submitted that as long as clause-5 of the scheme of regularisation dated 16.03.2006 is not questioned by the petitioners and so also clause in their order of regularisation dated 30.10.2013 (Clause-2) they are not entitle count such daily wage service towards fixation of pension. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing the grievance of the contesting respondents. He is also relying on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bhagwan Singh (Full Bench) reported in 2014 (4) PLJR 229 [: 2014 (4) BLJ 46 (SC)] (Para -14) it reads as under:— “14. Keeping in view the above provisions, we are of the opinion that the service rendered by the petitioner as daily wage Choukidar under the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Gaya cannot be said to be a service for which the petitioner was paid from the general revenue of the State Government or the service rendered on a substantive post in a permanent establishment. Such service, although was followed by absorption on regular establishment, will not qualify for pension. Therefore, the service rendered by the petitioner, as daily wage employee from April 1973 to December 1978, was not a pensionable service or did not qualify for pension. On his retirement from service or his superannuation from service, he would be entitled to pension for the service rendered on a substantive post from 1st January, 1979 till the date he retired from service.” 4. Per contra learned counsel for the contesting respondents resisted the aforementioned contentions and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Per contra learned counsel for the contesting respondents resisted the aforementioned contentions and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. In support of contesting respondents claim and to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge he is relying on Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rule, decision of this Court in the case of The Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. Ram Vyas Dubey and Ors. decided on 26.06.2023 in LPA No. 198 of 2016 [: 2024 (2) BLJ 380 ] by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2015 (2) PLJR (SC) 437 [: 2015 (2) BLJ 108 (SC)]. 5. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. Before adverting to the merits of the case it is necessary to reproduce certain provisions for the purpose of pension under the Bihar Pension Rules 1950, are as under:— “Part 1 Rule 2 of (the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950) are as under:— “2. Except where otherwise provided these rules apply to all Government servants to whom the rules in the Bihar and Orissa Service Code apply.” Rule 29 reads as under:— “29. Pensionable service means service which qualifies the Government servant performing it to receive a pension from general revenues.” Chapter VI relates to service qualifying for pension. Rule 58 reads as under:— “58. The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:— First—The service must be under Government. Second-The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third—The service must be paid by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following sub-rules” Sub-Rule (2)-First Condition-Service under Government. Rule 60 reads as under:— “60. The service of a Government servant does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. The following are examples of Government servants excluded from pension by this rule; (1) Employees of a municipality, (2) Employees of grant-in-aid schools and institutions. (3) Service on an establishment paid from the house hold allowance of the Governor or from his contract establishment allowance. Note 1.—If a Government servant has served partly (in a capacity which would have given his claim to pension. (3) Service on an establishment paid from the house hold allowance of the Governor or from his contract establishment allowance. Note 1.—If a Government servant has served partly (in a capacity which would have given his claim to pension. If the service had been paid from the general revenues), on the house hold establishment of the Governor, and partly on establishments paid from the general revenues, he is entitled from the general revenue, proportionate to the length of the service which has been so paid.” Sub-Rule (3)-Second Condition-Substantive and Permanent Employment. (I) General “61. Service does not qualify unless the Government servant holds substantively a post on a permanent establishment. 1. *Regarding-Temporary Service counting for Pension. It has now been decided that temporary service or officiating service under the State Government when followed by permanency whether in the same or any other post should count in full for pension except in respect of-- (i) period of temporary service is nonpensionable establishment, and (ii) period of service paid from contingencies. The concession of counting officiating and temporary service in full for pension will be available to Government servants who are governed by the Old Pension Rules, or the Liberalized Pension Rules. [Notification No. 12928F...dated 4.9.1962. This has effect from 1.8.1962.]” Chapter V relates to reckoning of service for pension. The petitioner’s case do not fall under the aforesaid Chapter V. Chapter VI-Conditions of Grant of Pensions. Under Section 1-Classification of Pensions petitioner’s case is required to be examined under Rule 107(d) Retiring pensions vide Section v. The petitioner’s case do not fall under the aforesaid provision. “59. The Provincial Government may, however, in the case of service paid from general revenues, even through either or both of conditions (1) and (2) are not fulfilled. (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension; (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in each case, direct that service rendered by a Government servant shall count for pension.” 6. (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension; (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose in each case, direct that service rendered by a Government servant shall count for pension.” 6. The State Government evolved a scheme for the purpose of regularisation of daily wagers/ad hoc employees on 16.03.2006 clause-5 reads as under:— ^^;fn fdlh foHkkx@dk;kZy; esa fjfDr ugha gks rks ,sls foHkkx@dk;kZy; esa dksbZ nSfud osruHkksfx;ksa dks] fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa muds }kjk yEch vofèk rd nSfud etnwjh dk;Zjr jgs tkus ds vkyksd esa vuqdEik ds vkèkkj ij fopkj djrs gq, muds }kjk osruHkksxh dehZ ds :i esa iw.kZ fd;s x, o"kZ (ftl o"kZ esa de ls de 240 fnuksa rd fd;k x;k gks) ds vuqlkj izfro"kZ ds fy, 15 fnuksa dk fu;ekuqlkj ykxw ikfjJfed nsdj fn;k tk;sxkA ijUrq ,slk ikfjJfed 20 o"kksZa ls vufèkd vofèk ek=k ds fy, ns; gksxkA** 7. One of the contesting respondents services were regularized on 30.10.2013 and it reads as under:— vèkh{k.k vfHk;Urk dk dk;kZy; dsUnzh; vapy] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] NTtwckx] iVuk&1 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&2784 fnukad&30@10@13 dk;kZy; vkns'k ftykfèkdkjh≶&vè;{k] ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr] iVuk ds Kkikad 271@eqñ fnukad 10-10-2013 ds vkyksd esa ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds vuq'kalkuqlkj nSfud osru Hkksxh Jh foey dqekj jk;] firk&Loñ olar dqekj jk;] eksñ&xkslkbZVksyk] iksñ&ikVyhiq=kk] Fkkuk&ikVyhiq=kk ftyk&iVuk dks bl vapy ds vèkhu ubZ jktèkkuh iFk izeaMy] iVuk esa dk;ZHkkfjr fu;fer LFkkiuk vUrZxr lewg ^?k* (oxZ 4) [kyklh ds LohÑr in ij iqujhf{kr osrueku ds is&cSUM 5200&20200 xszM osru 1800 esa le;≤ ij ljdkj }kjk LohÑr HkRrs ds lkFk ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls fuEu 'krsZa ds vè;èkhu fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- ;g fu;qfDr fcYdqy vLFkk;h gS rFkk fcuk iwoZ lwpuk vFkok dkj.k crk, fdlh Hkh le; lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 2- ;g vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ds ykxw gksxk rFkk iwoZ esa nSfud osru Hkksxh ;k vU; :i esa dh xbZ lsok dh x.kuk fdlh iz;kstukFkZ ugha dh tk;sxhA 3- mi lfpo] iñfuñfoñ] fcgkj iVuk ds i=k lañ 8399 (,lñ) fnukad 29-10-13 }kjk budk vfèkdre mez lhek {kkUr djus dh LohÑr izkIr gks pwdk gSA 4- tk¡p ds njE;ku ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd buds }kjk iznÙk izek.k i=k tkyh gS rks budh fu;qfDr j¼ dj nh tk;sxh] rFkk buds fo:¼ mfpr dkuwuh dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA 5- ;ksxnku ds le; bUgsa vlSfud 'kY; fpfdRld lg eq[; fpfdRlk inkfèkdkjh }kjk fuxZr LokLF; izek.k i=k tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 6- ;ksxnku ds fy, bUgsa fdlh izdkj dk ;k=k HkÙkk ns; ugha gksxkA gñ@& vèkh{k.k vfHk;Urk dsUnzh; vapy] iñfuñfoñ] iVuk Clause -2 prohibit for counting service towards pension of the regularized person admittedly, the contesting respondents have not questioned the validity of the clause-5 of the order dated 16.03.2006 cited (supra) and so also clause-2 of order of regularisation dated 30.10.2013, in other words contesting respondents have accepted the condition imposed in both general order as well as in the order of regularisation as long as those conditions cited in the general order and regularisation order are not questioned and set aside by competent forum. The contesting respondents have not made out a case in so far counting daily wage service towards pension. 8. The contesting respondents have not made out a case in so far counting daily wage service towards pension. 8. Be that as it may, taking note of decisions cited on behalf of the contesting respondents those decisions are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. In other words factual aspects of the matter are entirely different. In those cases, Clause-5 of order dated 16.03.2006 and so also any condition imposing denial of counting of daily wage service and its challenge in their regularisation order were not the subject matter. Therefore decisions taken note of by the learned Single Judge and cited on behalf contesting respondents are not applicable to the case in hand. At this stage, it is necessary to take note of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan and Ors. reported as (2009) 5 SCC 545 , para-48 which reads as under:— “48 Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In out opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block.” 9. Having regard to the Nair Service Society decision the cited decision on behalf of the contesting respondents read with the clause-5 scheme in the order dated 16.03.2006 read with Clause-2 in the order of regularisation the cited judicial pronouncements are not applicable to the case in hand as long as the competent forum set aside the relevant clauses cited (supra) in the order dated 16.03.2006 and 30.10.2013. 10. The learned Single Judge has not dealt with the clause imposed in the general order dated 16.03.2006 in respect of denial of service of daily wage for the purpose of not countable and so also suo motu interfered and set aside, similarly in the order of regularisation Clause-2 cited supra has not been interfered or set aside to contend that it is in violation of Article 14 or any other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error in not taking note of that there is policy decision of the State Government to the extent that daily wage service cannot be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension of such of those daily wagers whose services have been regularized. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, the appellants have made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2021 passed in CWJC No. 18826 of 2018 and it is set aside while rejecting the contesting respondents CWJC No. 18826 of 2018. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 744 of 2021, stands allowed. 13. At this stage learned counsel for the contesting respondents further argued that Annexure-A1 read with Annexure- A4 provides vested legal right to count the daily wage service. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 744 of 2021, stands allowed. 13. At this stage learned counsel for the contesting respondents further argued that Annexure-A1 read with Annexure- A4 provides vested legal right to count the daily wage service. Annexure-1 is general order dated 18.06.1993 which reads as under:— ^^fcgkj ljdkj] dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx] ladYi Kki lañ 3@,e 1&1069@88 ([k.M) dkñ 5940] fnukad 18 twu] 1993 dh izfrfyfiA fo"k;% jktdh; miØeksa ,oa ljdkj ds vèkhuLFk nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks LohÑr fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr esa vfèkekurk fn;s tkus ds lacaèk esaA nSfud osruHkkxh] ekLVj jkSy] vkdfLed Hk`R; vkfn deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer fu;qfDr ds lacaèk esa fofHkUu la?kksa }kjk mBk;s x;s ek¡xksa ij iQjojh] 1992 esa jkT; ljdkj ,oa vjktif=kr deZpkfj;ksa ds egkla?kksa@leUo; lfefr ds lkFk fuEu le>kSrs gq, gSa& ^^lacafèkr foHkkx }kjk muds vèkhuLFk vuqekU; fjDr inksa ds fo:¼ bu oxksZa ds dfeZ;ksa dks vkj{k.k fu;e&vgZrk] in vuqekU;rk ,oa vko';drk rFkk bl gsrq fuèkkZfjr dV&vkWiQ&MsV ds vkyksd esa ojh;rk inksa ds foKkiu lacaèkh dkuwu dk ikyu djrs gq, fu;fer fu;qfDr gsrq foHkkxh; lfefr fu.kZ; ysxhA dkfeZd foHkkx foLr`r vuqns'k fuxZr djsxkA** mDr le>kSrs ds vkyksd esa lE;d~ :i ls fopkjksijkUr ljdkj us fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; nSfud osruHkksxh] ekLVj jkSy] vkdfLed Hk`R; vkfn deZpkfj;ksa (ftUgsa vkxs nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh dgk tk;sxk) dks Lohd`r fjDr inksa ij fu;fer fu;qfDr esa vfèkekurk fn;s tkus ds lacaèk esa fy;k gS& 1- jkT; ljdkj }kjk ljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa ds nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks LohÑr fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr ds lacaèk esa le;≤ ij vko';d funsZ'k fn;s x;sA ;g Hkh funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd ljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa esa ,slh fu;qfDr;k¡ ugha dh tk;s rFkk fnukad 1&8&1985 ds ckn dh x;h ,slh vfu;fer fu;qfDr;ksa dks jí dj fn;k tk;sA vr,o dV&vkWiQ&MsV 1&8&1985 gksxk] vFkkZr~ oSls nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh] tks fnukad 1&8&1985 ds iwoZ ls de&ls&de 240 fnuksa ls dk;Zjr~ gSa] mUgsa vU; ifjfLFkfr;k¡ leku jgus ij fu;qfDr esa vfèkekuuk nsus ij fopkj fd;k tk;sA 2- oxZ 3 ,oa 4 dh fu;qfDr ds lacaèk esa dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij fuxZr ifji=k ykxw gksaxsA 3- fnukad 1&12&1991 dks foHkkx@{ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa ds fjDr LohÑr in dh tk¡p dj yh tk;sA 4- fnukad 1&12&1991 dks prqFkZ oxZ ds LohÑr fjDr inksa dh vuqekU;rk dh tkap foRr foHkkx }kjk fuxZr ifji=k lañ 3110] fnukad 10&4&1986 ds vkyksd esa dj yh tk;sA 5- LohÑr ,oa vuqekU; fjDr inksa ds dk;Zfgr esa Hkjuk vko';d gS ;k ugha] bls è;ku esa j[kk tk;sA 6- ,sls fjDr inksa dks Hkjus ds fy, fjfDr;ksa dh vfuok;Z vfèklwpuk vfèkfu;e dk iw.kZr% vuqikyu fd;k tk;sA 7- lacafèkr inksa ij fu;qfDr ds fy, fuèkkZfjr vgZrk;sa fo'ks"kr% U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa vuqHko dk ikyu fd;k tk;sA 8- vkj{k.k fu;e dk iw.kZ :i ls vuqikyu fd;k tk;sA 9- mijksDr :i ls ;ksX; nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer lsok esa vfèkekurk esa fuEuor~ lfefr xfBr dh tk;s& 1- foHkkxh; lfpo vè;{kA 2- foHkkxkè;{k lnL;A 3- LFkkiuk lfefr esa iwoZ ls vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds euksuhr izfrfufèk lnL;A 4- lacafèkr foHkkx ds LFkkiuk izHkkjh inkfèkdkjh lnL;A 10- mijksDr :i ls ;ksX; nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer lsok esa vfèkekurk ds vkèkkj ij oxZ 3 ,oa 4 ds in ij fu;qfDr fd;s tkus gsrq izR;sd yksd miØe bdkb;ksa ds fy; ;g dk;Z vè;{k] yksd m|e C;wjks dh vè;{krk esa xfBr fuEukafdr lfefr }kjk fd;k tk;sxk& 1- vè;{k] yksd m|e C;wjks vè;{kA 2- lacafèkr iz'kklh foHkkx ds lfpo lnL;A 3- lacafèkr miØe ds izcaèk funs'kd lnL;A 4- LFkkiuk lfefr esa iwoZ ls vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds euksuhr lnL; lnL;A 11- mi;qZDRk lfefr vius lfpoky;] funs'kky;] lac¼ dk;kZy;ksa ,oa {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa ls okafNr lwpuk;sa izkIr dj rFkk mij nh x;h lHkh 'krkZsa ds vuqikyu dh tkap dj fjDr ,oa vuqekU; inksa ij ;ksX; nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh vU; fcUnq leku gksus ij mudh ojh;rk ds vkèkkj ij vfèkekurk nsus ds fy, iSuy rS;kj djsxkA iSusy rS;kj djrs le; vkj{k.k ds jksLVj fcUnq dk iw.kZ:i ls vuqikyu fd;k tk;sxkA iSuy esa vkusokys ,sls O;fDr dh vk;q ;fn ljdkjh lsok esa izos'k djus dh vk;q ls vfèkd ikbZ tk;s rks muds ekeys esa vk;q lhek dks f'kfFky djus ds fy, foHkkxh; lfpo] vk;qDr ;k tks Hkh l{ke inkfèkdkjh gks] dk vkns'k izkIr djuk gksxkA ,sls rS;kj fd;s iSuy dh lwpuk l{ke inkfèkdkjh@inkfèkdkfj;ksa dks leqfpr dkjZokbZ gsrq lacafèkr foHkkx@C;wjks ds }kjk nh tk;sxh rFkk foÙk foHkkx dks iw.kZ lwpukvksa ds lkFk voxr djk;sxhA 12- 1.8.1985 ds ckn fu;qDr osruHkksxh O;fDr;ksa dh lsok lekIr dj nh tk;sA b.MLVªh;y fMLI;wV ,sDV ls dksHkjM deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok lekfIr ds lacaèk esa izkoèkkuksa dk ikyu djrs gq, dkjZokbZ dh tk;sA 13- mDr O;oLFkk ds dk;kZUo;u esa ;fn dksbZ dfBukbZ gks rks dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx bl lacaèk esa vko';d funsZ'k tkjh djsxkA iw.kZr% vuqikyu fd;k tk;sA 14. Annexure-4 dated 15.12.2000 reads as under:— fcgkj ljdkj] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkxA i=k lañ&bZ4@eqdnek&111@99& fnukad%& 15@12@2000 8940(5) izs"kd] Jh vt; dqekj flagk] ljdkj ds vij lfpoA lsok esa] vèkh{k.k vfHk;ark] dsUnzh; vapy] iñfuñfoñ] iVukA fo"k;% iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx ds {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa ds vèkhu fnñ 1&8&85 rd 240 fnuksa dh yxkrkj lsok djusokys nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks LohÑr fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr esa vfèkekurk fn;s tkus ds lacaèk esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lacaèk esa vfHk;ark izeq[k lg vij vk;qDr lg fo'ks"k lfpo dh vè;{krk esa foHkkxh; lfefr dh fnukad 22&9&2000 dks gqbZ cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; dh dk;Zokgh ds lkFk ;ksX; ?kksf"kr oSls deZpkfj;ksa tks fnukad 1&8&85 dks 240 fnuksa dh lsok iwjh djrs gq, vki ds vèkhuLFk dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr gS muds ekaxksa dh lwph bl vk'k; ds lkFk Hksth tk jgh gS fd dk;Zokgh ds lHkh dafMdkvksa] lfefr }kjk fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqRo okafNr dkjZokbZ dh tk; rFkk mldh lqpuk v|ksgLrk{kjh dks Hkh nh tk;A lkFk gh ;g Hkh vuqjksèk gS fd vkids miHkkx@vapy ls lacafèkr lwph esa dksbZ =kqfV ikbZ tk; rks mls vfoyac izdk'k esa yk;k tk;A vuqñ&;FkksDr 03 i`"B esaA fo'oklHkktu gñ@& ljdkj ds voj lfpo] iñfuñfoñ]iVukA gñ@& 15. Reading of the aforementioned documents it does not provide any vested legal right to claim for service to be counted for the purpose of pension. That apart the learned Single Judge has proceeded to draw an inference that as if contesting respondents were stated to have been working against sanctioned post in this regard he has cited Annexure-A1 cited (supra) and Annexurre-A1 is not relating to counting of daily wage service to towards pension. Even the contesting respondents have not produced any material to show that they were working against sanctioned post during the period from the year 1984 till 30.10.2013. The contesting respondents have also not questioned the validity of date of regularisation on 30.10.2013 to the extent that they are entitled to regularisation with retrospective effect as and when each of the contesting respondents completed 10 years of service in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 16. Accordingly, no further order is warranted.