By the Court—Heard Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. This is an appeal against judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are; the appellant was engaged as muster roll employee on 21.3.1983 as Beldar. The petitioner was thereafter taken under work charge establishment with effect from 1.1.1987. Subsequently, vide an order dated 12.10.1999, the appellant was regularised in regular employment as Class-IV employee by order dated 12.10.1999. The appellant after completion of 60 years of age was superannuated on 31.5.2005. The appellant earlier filed a writ petition No. 68494 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court on 27.2.2005 directing the Executive Engineer to consider the representation of appellant by which he claimed payment of pension. In pursuance of the order of this Court the Executive Engineer passed an order dated 6.12.2005 rejecting the representation of appellant. The Executive Engineer in the order held that appellant was taken into regular establishment on 15.10.1999 and he having retired on 31.5.2005 his services are less than 10 years, hence he is not entitled for pension. It was further held that service period of work charged (irregular) establishment does not count towards pension. The order dated 6.12.2005 was challenged in the writ petition by the appellant which writ petition has been dismissed.

4. Learned Single Judge vide his judgement dated 20.4.2006 dismissed the writ petition holding that appellant is entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 1.7.1989. The appellant has not completed 20 years of temporary service.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the judgement of learned Single Judge submitted that appellant having rendered more than 20 years of service is clearly entitled for pension. He submits that the appellant having retired in accordance with Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, he is entitled for grant of pension. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2006(1) ESC 611 (DB), Board of Revenue v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay and another, judgement of learned Single Judge dated 22.2.2005 in writ petition No. 53568 of 1999, Shri Gangoo v. Executive Engineer and another Anexure- 9 to the paper book.

6. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi on 20.4.2006.

8. The appellant-writ petitioner does not qualify for pension because he was neither in temporary service for 20 years or more, nor in regular service for 10 years or more.

9. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Board of Revenue v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611 (DB) mentions as condition (B) in paragraph-12 of the judgment that one of the three necessary conditions for qualifying for pension is that the employment must be substantive and permanent one.

10. Even if the word ‘and’ in the said judgement is read as ‘or’, the substantive nature of employment is a must. A temporary servant in a post would have a substantive appointment although not a permanent one.

11. In the case of the appellant a large part of 20 years of de facto service which he rendered was rendered either as a muster roll Beldar or as work charge employee. The material Civil Service Regulations 370 (page 55 of the paper book) mentions specifically that a work charge employee is not qualified for pension by reason of the number of years during which he rendered service as work charge employee.

12. This clearly shows that for the purposes of computing pension in the State temporary service cannot be held to include the period of work charge employment. The Government Order dated 1.7.1989 relied upon by the appellant-writ petitioner does not help the appellant at all, as that requires 10 years of regular service which is even high