Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Pensionary benefits have been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he did not complete 10 years' service as a regular employee. However, it is evident from record that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as Peon vide appointment letter dated 17.8.1960 and the said appointment has continued.

3. It is contended that under Fundamental Rule 56 amended by U.P. Act 24 of 1975 even temporary service qualify for pension. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgments in Dr. Hari Shankar Ashopa Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337; Board of Revenue and others Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay, 2006 (1) ESC 611; Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (8) ADJ 371 and Bansh Gopal Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (3) ESC 2248 (All).

4. When questioned, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that even temporary service qualify for pension.

5. It is not disputed that retirement of petitioner is governed by fundamental Rule 56 read with relevant provisions of Civil Services Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "C.S.R."). Every employee, whethe