Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The entitlement to pensionary benefits is contingent upon the regularisation of services. Employees must demonstrate their entitlement under specific Rules or Schemes to claim such benefits (!) (!) .

2. The petitioners, who are work-charged employees, sought regularisation of their services and pension benefits after attaining superannuation. The respondents argued that work-charged employees are not entitled to pension benefits under the applicable regulations (!) (!) .

3. The court held that without regularisation of services, employees cannot claim pensionary benefits. The claim for pension must be supported by a clear basis under relevant Rules or Schemes, which the petitioners failed to establish (!) (!) .

4. The court emphasized that pension is a valuable right but must be granted in accordance with the Rules or Schemes under which the employee is entitled. The absence of regularisation and lack of specific Rule-based entitlement led to the dismissal of the petition (!) (!) .

5. The respondents pointed out that a significant number of employees had already been regularised following prior directions and that the petitioners did not specify the Rules under which they claimed pension benefits (!) (!) .

6. The court noted that the petitioners did not provide details or particulars about the basis of their pension claims or the Rules under which they are entitled. Without proof of entitlement under a specific Rule, the claim for pension could not be upheld (!) (!) .

7. The court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that unless the services are regularised and the entitlement under a specific Rule or Scheme is established, pension claims cannot be granted (!) .

In summary, the legal outcome underscores that regularisation of services is a prerequisite for claiming pension benefits, and such benefits can only be granted if the employee demonstrates entitlement under the relevant Rules or Schemes.