Pension qualifying service requires Government service under the rules; prior A.T.L. employment could not be counted after absorption.

Past service in the erstwhile A.T.L. could not be counted as qualifying service for pension after absorption in State service because the governing pension framework required service under Government and satisfaction of the Civil Services Regulations conditions of substantive, permanent, Government-paid service. The earlier A.T.L. service was not shown to be pensionable, and the government orders relied on applied only to specified categories not covering the corporation on the pleaded facts. The Division Bench authority cited for pay protection was distinguished, while the later ruling rejected inclusion of A.T.L. service for pension in the absence of a specific rule. The rejection of the pension claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether past service rendered in the erstwhile A.T.L. could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits after absorption in State service.

Analysis: The claim had to be tested under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and the Civil Services Regulations. Qualifying service under Rule 3(8) was service under the Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the Civil Services Regulations required the service to be under Government, substantive and permanent, and paid by Government. The petitioner's earlier service in A.T.L. was not shown to be pensionable, and the relevant government orders applied only to specified categories and did not extend to a corporation or undertaking on the facts pleaded. The prior Division Bench decision relied upon by the petitioner was treated as dealing with pay protection, not with counting past service for pension, and the later Division Bench ruling rejected inclusion of service rendered in A.T.L. for pensionary benefits in the absence of a specific rule.

Conclusion: The past service in A.T.L. was not liable to be counted for pensionary qualifying service, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits because no legal or factual basis was shown for extending pensionary benefit on the footing of pre-absorption service in A.T.L.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific rule, only service rendered under Government and otherwise meeting the governing pension conditions can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits after absorption.

---