Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—Challenge in this special appeal is to the judgement and order dated 1.10.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. The petitioner-appellant’s grievance is that his past services after absorption as a Government servant are not being counted for grant of pensionary benefits upon retirement.

2. We have heard Mr. Vikas Budhwar alongwith Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Raghvendra Dwivedi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

3. On the matter being taken up today, learned Standing counsel filed a supplementary counter-affidavit which is taken on the record.

4. After having gone through the record, we specifically asked the learned Standing Counsel as to whether the cost of Rs. 10,000/- as earlier directed to be paid by the State repondents, has been deposited or not. We drew the attention of the learned Standing Counsel to the orders dated 24.11.2017, 9.1.2018, 16.1.2018 and 29.1.2018. Learned Standing Counsel accordingly prayed that the matter be taken after lunch so that he may verify the position. The learned Standing Counsel has produced the photo copy of the bank draft of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Registrar General which is said to have been deposited today itself vide tender dated 13.2.2018. Accordingly, we have proceeded with the hearing of the appeal.

5. The petitioner-appellant filed C.M.W.P. No. 64558 of 2010 for the following relief:

“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a. issue a writ, order or directio in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to count the service from 14.9.1972 to 26.3.1996 rendered in the Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhanis may be counted for the purpose of pension

c. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem thing fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

6. The case of the petitioner-appellant as set out in the writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of supervisor in Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhansi on 14.9.1972. While the petitioner-appellant was in service, the State Government took a decision to wind up nine Divisional Development Corporations (Vikas Nigams). Accordingly, a Government Order dated 11.11.1993 was issued, whereby, nine Divisional Development Corporation including the Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhansi were directed to be closed. Subsequent to the aforesaid Government Order dated 11.11.1993, the petitioner-appellant who continued in the services of the Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhansi upto 26.3.1996 was appointed on the post of Collection Amin, Tehsil Charkhari, District Jhansi. A perusal of the appointment letter dated 26.3.1996 will go to show that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was in terms of the Government Order dated 11.11.1993 itself. As such, the petitioner-appellant was absorbed on the post of Collection Amin on account of his becoming a retrenched employee of the Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhansi. The petitioner-appellant further complied with the formalities so that there is no obstacle in the payment of pension to the petitioner-appellant. Having completed the requisite formality as directed by the superior officers which is evident from the averments made in paragraphs 10 to 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner appellant submitted letter dated 3.12.2005 and 12.1.2006 to the effect that the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Bundelkhand Vikas Nigam, Jhansi be counted for calculating his pension. This prayer made by the petitioner-appellant came to be rejected by means of an order dated 30.11.2007, passed by the respondent No. 2 The Deputy Secr