By the Court.—Heard Chief Standing Counsel for appellant and Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1952’) has arisen from judgment dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Single Judge allowing appellant’s Writ Petition No. 47338 of 2000 and directing District Magistrate, Ballia to pay pension and retiral benefits to petitioner-respondent.

3. It is contended by learned Chief Standing Counsel that appellant was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin till 31.10.1981. Thereafter, he was made temporary and since then he continuously worked till the date of retirement on 31.8.1999, hence is not entitled to pension or other retiral benefits under U.P. Collection Amin’ Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1974”) Reliance is placed by learned Chief Standing Counsel on the judgment dated 23.5.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29292 of 2013 (Ghanshyam Mishra v. State of U.P. and others).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contended that appellant was entitled to be treated in continuous service entitled to retrial benefits, in view of law laid down in Board of Revenue and others v. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006(1) ESC 611 (All) (DB), which has been followed in Special Appeal No. 1891 of 2009 (State of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue Dept. and others v. Ram Sundar Ram) whereagainst Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 426 of 2017 has been dismissed by Supreme Court on 21.4.2017.

5. Before examining the correctness of rival submission, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view to relevant facts giving rise to this appeal.

6. Petitioner respondent Mahendra Chaubey was appointed as Collection Amin on temporary basis in Agriculture Department in District Ballia on 27.11.1963 and ceased to work on 31.8.1975. Thereafter he was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 12.3.1976 and worked till 31.10.1981, when he was made temporary on the post of Collection Amin and since then he continued to work till he attained age of superannuation on 31.8.1999 and retired under Fundamental Rule 56. He claimed that his entire service rendered in Agriculture Department and thereafter as Seasonal Collection Amin in Revenue Department should have been computed as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. He made a representation but same was rejected by order dated 15.5.2000. The said order was challenged by petitioner respondent in Writ Petition No. 40722 of 1999. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.9.1999, directing District Magistrate Ballia to decide petitioner’s representation, if made afresh taking all the grounds for redressal of his grievances by a reasoned order in the light of Government Order dated 1.7.1989. Pursuant to this, District Magistrate has rejected representation dated 22.11.1999 submitted by petitioner respondent, vide order dated 15.5.2000. District Magistrate has held that petitioner worked in the office of District Agriculture Ballia from 1.7.1963 to 1973 and thereafter was terminated therefrom, then he was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin on 12.3.1976 in Revenue Department. He was selected and appointed on substantive basis as Collection Amin vide order dated 18.7.1999. Since 18.7.1994 to 31.8.1999 only for about five years and no more petitioner had served in substantive capacity, hence having not completed requisite period of qualifying service, petitioner respondent is not entitled to any pension. It is this order which was challenged by petitioner respondent in Writ Petition No. 47338 of 2000, which has been allowed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 8.2.2006. This judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that petitioner was only a Seasonal Collection Amin up to 1994. The aforesaid period cannot qualify for pension and