Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri G.P. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon on 13.6.1963, regularised as Collection Peon on 31.1.1996, confirmed on the post of Collection Peon on 4.9.2000, attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2005 and retired from the said post. Considering his qualifying service of less than 10 years, the respondents have not paid any pension to him hence this writ petition. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Board of Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611.

3. However, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

4. It is no doubt true that pension being deferred wages, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305, is not a bounty but right but simultaneously it is also true that pension when payable is governed by the statutory rules or the statute and in case the rules do not provide for the same it cannot be claimed at all. The petitioner from 1963 to January, 1996 remained a Seasonal Collection Peon and only on 31.1.1996 he was appointed against a substantive vacancy, kept on one year probation and was appointed in pay scale of Rs. 750-940 as Collection Peon. After completion of period of probation vide order dated 4.9.2000 he was also confirmed on the post of Collection Peon. He retired on 28.2.2005 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as provided under Fundamental Rule 56.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra) also the incumbent was a Seasonal Collection Peon and was held to be entitled for pensionary benefits taking into account his service rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon as qualifying service is not correct inasmuch as in the said case the Board of Revenue which had filed an intra Court appeal before the Division Bench has taken a plea that the employee was not substantively appointed and confirmed on the post of Collection Peon but had throughout worked as Seasonal Collection Peon which fact was not found correct either by Hon’ble Single Judge or by the Division Bench as is evident from para 5 of the judgment which is reproduced as under :

“5. From the record it is not disputed that the respondent has worked as Collection Peon since 10.2.1962 till 31st July, 1999 when he attained the age of superannuation on attaining 60 years of age and was retired from service (except of notional break of three months in the year 1989). Thus, apparently the respondent worked in the service of the appellants for almost more than 37 years. The appellants although submitted that the respondent was employed as Seasonal Collection Peon but the Hon’ble Single Judge on the basis of the perusal of the service book of the respondent has found that the employment of the petitioner-respondent has been mentioned as Collection Peon (Temporary) but subsequently in the service book it has been mentioned that he is working as Seasonal Collection Peon. The entry of initial appointment of the petitioner-respondent as temporary Collection Peon is not disputed. That being so, it is not possible to assume as to how the respondent has been shown as Seasonal Collection Peon in the subsequent part of the service book. The appellants could not explain this aspect even in the present appeal, although in para-7 of the affidavit they have admitted that in the 2nd column of the service book, a formal entry “temporary” of the service of the respondent is mentioned. It is also mentioned that the notice of retirement dated 5.5.1999 filed as Annexure-2 to the paper book of the appeal shows that the designation of the petitioner-respondent has been shown as Sangrah Chaprasi (Collection Peon) and not as a Seasonal Coll