ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following relief “… to pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the proceedings of the 1 st respondent bearing Memo No. 216/CE/A1/2023, dt.03-07-2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reckoning the services of the petitioner with effect from 13-11-1984 when the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology (his services were regularized with effect from 12-8-1993) for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits as per the law laid down by Honourable High Court of Telangana in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dt. 02-05-2018, wherein it is held that even NMR/Temporary services prior to the regularization of service shall also be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to refix the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner by reckoning his service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 13-11-1984, notionally and confer all consequential benefits and pay the arrears thereof with interest to the petitioner and to pass...”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology on a part time basis in Bhavan’s New Science College (Day), Narayanaguda, Hyderabad vide proceedings, dated 21.12.1981 and was continued up to March, 1982. The petitioner applied for the regular post of Lecturer in Geology in the same college and was selected by the Selection Committee by the order dated 13.11.1984 and approved by Osmania University on 19.11.1984. But the petitioner was appointed in a vacancy admitted in a grant-in-aid, thereby entitled for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.905, dated 29.9.1976 and also entitled for pay and allowances. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent has issued proceedings bearing G.O.Rt.No.739, dated 07.10.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Geology in the same college with effect from 12.08.1993. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent has issued proceedings bearing G.O.Rt.No.739, dated 07.10.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Geology in the same college with effect from 12.08.1993. 3 (i) It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the said decision, on an earlier occasion the petitioner filed W.P. No.21442 of 2004 and it was dismissed on 10.09.2018 and the same was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2022. However, the petitioner is entitled for reckoning of his service with effect from 13.11.1984 when he was initiated appointed as Lecturer though his services were regularized with effect from 12.8.1993. In view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 02.05.2018 the NMR/Temporary service prior to regularization of service shall be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.09.2022 to refix his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning his service benefits with effect from 13.11.1984. However, the 1 st respondent issued impugned proceedings bearing Memo No.216/CE/A1/2023, dated 03.07.2023, dated 03.07.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The impugned Memo No.216/ CE/ A1/ 2023, dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Secretary to Government to the 2 nd respondent is extracted hereunder. “GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA HIGHER EDUCATION (CE) DEPARTMENT Memo-No.216/ CE/ A1/ 2023 Dated 03.07.2023 Sub:- Establishment Higher Education Department -Orders, dated: 15.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.44923 to 2022-Request of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Reader in Geology (Retired on 31.10.2012), Bhavans New Science College, Narayanguda, Hyderabad for reckoning of his services w.e.f. 13.11.1984 and to release pension and pensionery benefits along with interest Not feasible for consideration - Rejected -Regarding. Ref.:-1. Orders, dated: 21.04.1993 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.17066 of 1991 led by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 2. Proceedings. Rc No. 197/PC.III-1/92, dated: 05.03.1994 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. 3. Orders, dated: 07.11.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 12321/94, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 4. Government Memo No. 10645/CE.II.2/96-4, dated:04.11.1997. 5. Orders, dated: 25.03.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.30757/97, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 6. G.O.Rt.No. 739, ?.?.(CE.II-2) Department, dated:07.10.2004. 7. Orders dated: 10.09.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21442 of 2004. 8. 3. Orders, dated: 07.11.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No. 12321/94, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 4. Government Memo No. 10645/CE.II.2/96-4, dated:04.11.1997. 5. Orders, dated: 25.03.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.30757/97, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 6. G.O.Rt.No. 739, ?.?.(CE.II-2) Department, dated:07.10.2004. 7. Orders dated: 10.09.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21442 of 2004. 8. Order, dated: 02.09.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.1371 of 2018 In W.P.No.21442 of 2004 filed by the Dr.T.P.Srinivasan lecturer in Geology. 9. From Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Reader in Geology (Retd.), Bhavans New Science College Narayanguda Representation dated:23.09.2022 Hyderabad 10. Orders, dated: 15.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.44923 to 2022, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan. 11. From the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad, Lr.No.CCE-ADMN/CC/2/2023-ADMN, dated:04.05.2023. ***** In the reference 1 st cited, The Hon'ble High Court in its Order, dated: 21.04.1993 in W.P.No.17066 of 1991 filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, lecturer in Geology while allowing the petition held that: "It is not disputed that the post of the petitioner is not admitted to grant-in Aid. Under this background, I hold that the post of the petitioner is admitted to grant-in aid and that there is sufficient work for the petitioner. In my view there is no justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for continuation and regularization of his services. The learned Government Pleader has brought to my notice the G.O.Ms.No.302, dt:23.08.1991 by which the Government had power to regularize the services of the lecturers who are appointed temporarily. Since the Government issued the said G.O. in 1991. I am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit accrued in terms of the said G.O. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for regularization as lecturer in the third respondent college, since the petitioner is seized to be in services with fed from June, 1992 The only other question that would fall for consideration is whether the respondent could be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. At the petitioner is not in service since June 1992, I consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but without any back wages by regulertzing his services. At the petitioner is not in service since June 1992, I consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but without any back wages by regulertzing his services. However the petitioner claim for the seniority is concerned, the respondents have to decide the question of seniority taking into account the interest of other claimants if any. It is made dear that the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed by taking into account the notional seniority. The orders impugned in this writ petition is set aside the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost". 2. Accordingly, the appointment of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan has been approved w.e.f. from 12.08.1993 as a regular lecturer and the supplementary salary statement has also been approved w.e.f. 12.08.1993. Aggrieved by, Dr.T.P.Srinivasan filed W.P.No.12321 of 1994 for fixing of pay from the date of his appointment as Part Time Lecturer l.e., 13.11.1984, and to release arrears from 12.11.1993. 3. In the reference 3 rd cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its orders, dated: 07.11.1996 in W.P.No.12321 directed the 1 st respondent i.e. Govt. Of AP, to consider the petitioner claim for fixing of pay and pass appropriate orders. 4. Accordingly, Government in the reference 4th cited, has rejected the claim on the following grounds: I. The Hon'ble High Court in its interim orders dated: 25.08.1992 in W.P.No.153225 of 1992 in W.P.No. 17066 of 1991 directed to continue on the old terms on which he was earlier working, pending further orders on W.P. he worked only as Part time Lecturer earlier. II. He worked as part time Lecturer drawing consolidated pay on remuneration of RS: 20/- per period which service cannot be counted even for notional fixation. III. That he was given notional fixation in terms of order dated: 04.11.1994 In W.P.No. 14972 of 94 and orders date. 04.06.1995 in W.A.No.329/95 subject to the ultimate decision of writ petition. 5. Dr T.P.Srinivasan has filed a fresh W.P.No.30757 of 1997 praying the Hon'ble High Court to set aside the Government Memo.No.10645/CE.11.2/96-4, dated: 04.11.1997 and further direct the respondents to fix the pay in the scale of RS;3000-5000/- Under CAS laid down in para-9(b) of appendix to para of G.O. Ms.No.520, Education Department, Dated: 15.12.1988, with all consequential benefits like arrears etc. Dr T.P.Srinivasan has filed a fresh W.P.No.30757 of 1997 praying the Hon'ble High Court to set aside the Government Memo.No.10645/CE.11.2/96-4, dated: 04.11.1997 and further direct the respondents to fix the pay in the scale of RS;3000-5000/- Under CAS laid down in para-9(b) of appendix to para of G.O. Ms.No.520, Education Department, Dated: 15.12.1988, with all consequential benefits like arrears etc. 6 In the reference 5 th cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its Order, dated 25/03/2004 in W.P.No.30757 of 1997 white allowing the petition has set aside the Order in Govt., Memo.No. 10645/CE.11.2/96-4, dated 04.11.1997 and directed to regularize the services in terms of the Judgment, dated: 21.04.1993 in W.P No. 17066 of 1991. 7. Accordingly, in the reference 6 th cited, orders were issued regularizing the services of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Lecturer in Geology, Bhavans New Science College, Narayanguda, Hyderabad with effect from 12.08.1993. Aggrieved by, the petitioner has again filed a W.P No.21442 of 2004 in the Hon'ble High Court, to quash G.O.Rt. No.739, Higher Education (CE.11-2) Department, dated: 07.10.2004 and consequently, to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner under CAS laid down in paragraph no.9 (b) of appendix to paragraph no.4 of G.O.FMs No 520, Education Department, dated: 15.12.1988 with all consequential benefits like arrears etc. 8. In the reference 7 th cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its order, dated: 10.09.2018 in W.P. No.21442 of 2004, held that: "Insofar as W.P. filed by the petitioner i.e., W.P.No.15366 of 2001 is concerned, the prayer therein was for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records regarding seniority list of lecturers dated: 06.07.2001 issued by the college, for quashing the same and for directing the management to place the petitioner at an appropriate place reckoning his seniority from 13.01.1984. In the said writ petition, the issue whether the service rendered prior to regularization can be reckoned or not for the purpose of seniority was not taken into account. As per the service jurisprudence, there cannot be any seniority even before regularization of services. At best the services rendered prior to regularization can be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only, if at all the petitioner is entitled to. As per the service jurisprudence, there cannot be any seniority even before regularization of services. At best the services rendered prior to regularization can be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only, if at all the petitioner is entitled to. Moreover, when a specific finding was recorded in the judgment in W.P. 17066 of 1991, dated: 21.04.1993 that the petitioner was out of employment from June, 1992 till he was reinstated in pursuance of the judgment passed in W.P.No.17066 of 1991 in the year 1993 and when there was a gap in the services of the petitioner for a period of more than two years, there cannot be any retrospective regularization with effect from 13.11.1984. Therefore this court is of the view that the 1 st respondent has rightly regularized the services of the petitioner vide G.O.Rt. No.739 Higher Education dated: 07-10-2004 with effect from 12-08-1993 In terms of the judgment in W.P.No. 17066 of 1991 dated: 21.04.1993. There are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs Consequently Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand dismissed". 9. Dr.T.P.Srinivasan has filed a Writ Appeal No 1371 of 2018 against the Orders, dated: 10.09.2018 in V.P. 21.442 of 2004. 10. In the reference 8 th cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its order, dated: 02.09.2022 in the Writ Appeal No. 1371 of 2018 held that "It is well settled proposition of law that regularizing the services of temporary/part-time/ad hoc appointed are purely governed by the policies of the State Government and the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his past service for the purpose of regularization and granting for any emoluments attached to the said post. It is also well settled law at the Courts, while granting orders for regularization of part time employees, have to keep in mind the financial implications of the state for granting monetary benefits to the employees, whose services are going to be regularized. In fact, in the present case, the appellant/petitioner services were regularized not in terms of any of the policy laid down by the state, but it is only in compliance of the orders passed in W.P.No. 17066 of 1991, dated: 21.04.1993. In fact, in the present case, the appellant/petitioner services were regularized not in terms of any of the policy laid down by the state, but it is only in compliance of the orders passed in W.P.No. 17066 of 1991, dated: 21.04.1993. Therefore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot be permitted to insist that his past services as Part time lecturer should be reckoned for the purpose of granting seniority or for the purpose of fixing the scale of pay i.e., Rs.3000-5000/- under CAS I.e., senior scale on completion of five years I.e., 13.11.1989 and selection grade Scale on completion of another five i.e., 13.11.1994. Further the contention of the appellant/petitioner that in view of allowing the writ petition i.e, W.P..No.15366 of 2001, on 23.08.2012, his services can be reckoned for the purposed of fixing the seniority and also for fixing the scale of pay from the date of initial appointment i.e., 13.11.1984 cannot be countenanced for the reason that the challenge and submissions in the aforesaid writ petition are only with regard to seniority and not relating to the fixation of scale of pay. Further, in the aforesaid writ petition, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education is one of the respondents and the state, represented by its Principal Secretary is not a party respondent and in view of the same, the finding recorded therein are not binding on the State Government either for granting seniority or for granting any scale of pay or any other benefits in terms of the said order. On this ground also, the order impugned does not warrant any interference of this court. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has relied upon the decision of this court in V. Sidda Reddy V. Government of Andhra Pradesh , the issue involved in the said decision are whether the unaided service should be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension, for appointment to the Special Grade Post on the basis of Automatic Advancement Scheme. Further the Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty , The Supreme Court has observed that the regularization of ad hoc employee should only be prospective and not retrospective and since the appellant/petitioner services were regularized with effect from 12-08-1993 in pursuance of the order passed in W.P.No. 17066 of 1991 dated: 21-04-1993 the decision relied by then appellant/petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed". 11. In the reference 9th cited, Dr.T.P.Srinivasan in his representation, dated: 28.09.2022, has stated that, he is rightfully entitled for reckoning his past service w.e.f. 13.11.1984, though his services were regularized with effect from 12.08.1993 and requested to re-fix his pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 13.11.1984, notionally and confer all consequential benefits and pay arrears along with Interest thereof. 12. Dr.T.P.Srinivasan has again filed a Writ Petition No.44923 of 2022 in the Hon'ble High Court for not reckoning the his services w.e.f.13.11.1984. 13. In the reference 10 th cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its order, dated: 15.12.2022 has directed the respondents to dispose of the representation, dated 28.09.2022 strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 14. In the circumstance reported by the Commissioner of collegiate education in the reference 11 th cited, Government after careful examination of the matter in the light of the orders, dated: 15.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in the W.P.No.44923 of 2022, hereby observe that, reckoning the services in respect of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Reader in Geology (Retd.), Bhavans New Science College, Narayanguda, Hyderabad w.e.f. 13.11.1984 is not feasible for consideration, since regularization of service is with prospective effect only. Hence, the request of the individual to re-fix his pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 13.11.1984, notionally and confer all consequential benefits and pay arrears along with interest thereof, is hereby rejected. 15. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad shall take further necessary action In the matter, accordingly. KARUNA VAKATI SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. The Individual concerned through the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. (B) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 is extracted hereunder . KARUNA VAKATI SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. The Individual concerned through the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. (B) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 is extracted hereunder . "On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINIVASULU to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances”. (C) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019, dated 24.11.2022 in particular para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder . 5. Under identical circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 dated 17.03.2016 referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension held that the qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed with substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. 6. Subject to the exceptions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated under Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension which reads as under: "13. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension which reads as under: "13. Commencement of qualifying service : Subject to the provisions of the 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 - (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 17 th November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (16) years shall not count for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. 14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies : (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify duties are and pay unless his regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government." 7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 very clearly held that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 . 8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.17700 of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition and the same was implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr.No.6047/ CRP&RE/ C-2/ 2018, dated 10.10.2018 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B10/ 4170/ 2015, dated 08.10.2018. 10. 10. In W.P.No.1425 of 2019, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court considered the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.10.2019 referring to the judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC 473 State of Tamil V. T.N. Registration Department Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 10 and 11 held hereunder: ”9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. 10. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to above, we are of the view that the past service of the applicant, who is the respondent herein, prior to his regularization, has to be considered for the of pensionary benefits. 11. It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and batch dated 14.11.2014 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to implement the same.” 11. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: “36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi 11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned Memo of the 1 st respondent dated 03.07.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reckoning services of the petitioner with effect from 19.11.1984 when the petitioner was initially appointed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the High Court of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch wherein it has been held that even NMR temporary services prior to regularization of services shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and therefore, the order impugned of the 1 st respondent needs to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and also the common order of Division Bench of this Court dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P. Nos. 20691, 20700, 20701, 20702 and 21086 of 2012. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 7. 20691, 20700, 20701, 20702 and 21086 of 2012. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 7. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court and other courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the services rendered by an employee right from the day the employee enters the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. But in the present case, the said legal position had been totally ignored and the impugned memo, dated 03.07.2023 had been issued by the 1 st respondent contending that regularization of service is with prospective effect only and hence, the request of the petitioner is rejected stating it is not feasible for consideration, therefore, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 1 st respondent in accordance to law , duly considering the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above). 8. Taking into consideration (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The impugned Memo No.216/ CE/ A1/ 2023, dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Secretary to Government to the 2 nd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above), (d) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019, dated 24.11.2022 in particular para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 (referred to and extracted above), (f) The order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.20691, 20700, 20701, 20702 and 21086 of 2012 (g) The fact that the impugned Memo of the 1 st respondent is without application of mind passed in a routine manner mechanically without considering the earlier orders of this Court in similar facts and circumstances. The writ petition is allow ed. The writ petition is allow ed. The impugned Memo No.216/ CE/ A1/ 2023, dated 03.07.2023 of the 1 st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refixation of petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 13.11.1984 notionally and for release of the said benefits, arrears with interest thereof is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for re-fixation of the pension and pensionery benefits to the petitioner by reckoning petitioner services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 13.11.1984 notionally and further reconsider the request of the petitioner for release of the said benefits to the petitioner in accordance to law , duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment (referred to and extracted above) and the Division Bench order of this court, dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.20691, 20700, 20701, 20702 and 21086 of 2012 and also the order of this Court, dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019 and also the order, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 & batch, w ithin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.