By the Court.—Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Petitioners are seeking mandamus commanding respondents to count previous services of petitioners rendered in Uttar Pradesh State Brassware Corporation Ltd., Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSBCL’) for purposes of pension and other retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance judgment of Division Bench in “Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P.” Service Bench No. 410 of 2010 decided on 4.4.2012 and in some other matters.

4. However, we find no merit in the claim made by the petitioners. UPSBCL was a company incorporated under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1956’), though owned by State of U.P.

5. The petitioner-1, Pooran Singh Manral, was appointed as Field Officer (UPSBCL) on 12.6.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-750 and then promoted as Assistant Procurement Officer on which post he continued till his retrenchment on 15.3.1994 and at the time of retrenchment he was working in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-3200.

6. Petitioner-2 Hari Ram Verma was also appointed in UPSBCL as Sales Assistant Cum Show Room Incharge in the Pay Scale Rs. 350-700. Subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Senior Show Room Incharge in the Pay Scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and was retrenched from the said promoted post on 15.3.1994.

7. After retrenchment, petitioners were given opportunity of absorption on a post, under State Government, inasmuch as both petitioners were appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.6.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 on substantive basis initially on probation for two years, and subsequently confirmed. The names of petitioners in order dated 22.6.1995 (Annexure-3) to the writ petition are shown at serial numbers-9 and 14. Petitioners then promoted as Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.7.1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 and on attaining age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56, they retired on 31.12.2009 and 31.8.2014, respectively. Pay protection has been made when pay was fixed on appointment in Government service. Service rendered by petitioners in UPSBCL has not been counted as ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of computation of pension and other retiral benefits and this is illegal and arbitrary.

8. It is contended that the aforesaid approach on the part of respondents is contrary to law laid down in Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra) and several other judgments, rendered following it i.e. Raj Mani Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. (SS) 53 of 2014 decided on 8.4.2015, Dev Pratap Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. (SS) 6264 of 2013 decided on 10.3.2014, State of U.P. v. Dev Pratap Pandey, Special Appeal (Defective No. 417 of 2014) decided on 22.7.2015 and Supreme Court order dated 22.7.2016 dismissing Special Leave Petition CC No. 22538-22539 of 2015 against Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others v. Dev Pratap Pandey (supra).

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that benefit of absorption and pay protection etc. was allowed to petitioners in terms of relevant rules applicable at the time of absorption but for ‘qualifying service’ for pension and retiral benefits, provisions of Civil Service Regulations and U.P. Government Service (Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1961’) shall be applicable and unless there is a statutory provision entitling petitioners to count their service rendered in a Non-Government establishment i.e. a company (UPSBCL) which is not a department of Government, service rendered in such company cannot be said to ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of computation of pension and other retiral benefits.

10. We have to examine question, “whether services rendered by petitioners in UPSBCL can be allowed to count as ‘qualifyin