that the respondent-writ petitioner had not deposited the amount of gratuity/bonus after discharge, whereas the writ petitioner had joined the civil services while being in services of territorial army and he had not received anything. Therefore, there was no occasion to deposit the bonus/gratuity amount with the State to claim inclusion of past services rendered by him in territorial army. 8. Learned counsel would next submit that Rule 19 of Rules of 1996 could not be applied retrospectively to take away the vested right of the writ-petitioner to count his services rendered in territorial army upon fulfillment of terms and conditions, as stipulated in Rule 175 of the Rules of 1951. He would further submit that the period of service, which has been shown in various documents if is discrepant, could always be resolved by making an appropriate enquiry. In any case, the writ petitioner has claimed only 9 years and 7 months and not beyond that. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The fact, which is not in dispute, is that the respondent-writ petitioner was working in the territorial army at the time when he was selected and joined the civil services as Jamadar . The parties admit that he joined services on 22.07.1983. Whether or not, the services rendered by the respondent with the territorial army were liable to be counted for the purposes of pension after joining civil services, are to be governed by the service rules/pension rules, which were in force and operation on the date of joining. It is for the reason that counting of the services rendered under the previous employer is essentially a matter of policy embodied in service rules. Therefore, services rendered under previous
