JUDGMENT :

RAJIV JOSHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Govind Narain Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 03.02.1978 in pay scale 200-320 and thereafter, was granted regular pay scale of Collection Amin from 1982, until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012. Petitioner was granted increments, bonus, leave encashment and income tax was regularly deducted from his salary. The pay scale was revised from time to time. During service, petitioner filed several petitions seeking regularization under 35% quota provided under the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (for short “the Rules 1974”). The petition being Writ Appeal No. 20531 of 2010 came to be disposed of on 24.11.2014, directing the Collector, Ballia, to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amin under the Rules, 1974. The District Magistrate, Ballia, vide order dated 04.04.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was not found suitable, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. It is urged that by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came to be appointed in the year 1978 and retired in the year 2012, having rendered service for three decades as temporary employee appointed against a post, therefore, is entitled to pension.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and Another, was considering as to whether a temporary government servant appointed against substantive post and continued as lecturer, reader and professor of surgery is entitled to retiring pension upon seeking to retire voluntarily. The Court upon considering the Articles 465 and 465A of the Civil Service Regulations read with Financial Hand Book Volume-II Part 2 to 4 made the following observation:

“16. The requirement of employment being substantive and permanent, which is one of the three basis constituents of “qualifying service” envisaged in Articles 465 and 465-A has ceased to be sine qua non for earning a retiring pension by service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh after 7th June, 1975 with effect from which date the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975), amending Rule 56 of the Rules and rescinding Articles 465 and 465-A of the Regulations, has been enforced. Now the source for attaining the right to retiring pension in R. 56.............

Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally recognises, declares and guarantees retiring pension to every Government servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation or who is prematurely retired or who retires voluntarily. To be precise, every Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) who retires under Cl. (a) or Cl. (b). or who is required to retire, or who is allowed to. Retire under Cl. (c) of R. 56, becomes entitled for a retiring pension, provided, of course, the first and third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied.”

5. The Court accordingly held that person appointed temporarily against a substantive vacancy is entitled to retiring pension in view of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.

6. In Smt. Shakuntala @ Brahmo Devi vs. Director of Pension, the learned Single Judge of this Court was called upon to consider whether a temporary government servant rendering 34 years of service upon being compulsory retired is entitled to pensionary benefit. While deciding the issue the Government Order dated 01.07.1989, provided that government servants not rendering ten years of regular service are not entitled for pensionary benefits. The Court taking note of the provisions of Articles 361, 424, 465 of the Civil Service Regulations and Fundamental Rule 56 observed as follows:

“10...........By Government order dated 1.7.1989, it was provided that temporary Gove