M. VENUGOPAL, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondent in connection with the order passed in O.A.No.458 of 2015 vide order dated 06.07.2016 and quash the same.)

1. The Petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.458 of 2015 dated 06.07.2016.

2. Earlier, the 2nd Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, while passing orders in Original Application No.310/00458 of 2015 [filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant], at paragraphs 9 and 10, had observed the following:

“9. Be that as it may, the fact that the applicant was appointed on adhoc basis as Group D on 26.6.2000 against the 'vacancies for the year 2000' and continued as Group D employee on adhoc basis till 21.03.2002 cannot be disputed as it is a matter of record. It is admitted that in terms of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the period of 10 years of qualifying service will entitle a government servant to pension on his retirement. It is also admitted that relevant executive instructions exist to the effect that in view of Rule 49(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, a period of three months and above and less than six months is counted as one half year and reckoned as qualifying service for determination of pension. A period of 9 months would, therefore, be two half years. Accordingly, a service of over 9 years 9 months should be counted as 10 years for the purpose of determining the qualifying service.

10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid rule position, it appears that the validity of the respondents' contention that only a regular service would qualify for pension would need to be tested. The term 'qualifying service' is defined in Rule 3(1)(q) of the CCS (Pension) Rules as follows:-

“'Qualifying service' means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules.”

A plain reading of the above definition indicates that qualifying service must include services rendered while on duty or otherwise. By no stretch of imagination can it be argued that adhoc service rendered on a regular post i.e. Group D is not a 'service rendered while on duty or otherwise'. Nor is there a requirement in this rule or Rule 49 ibid that the service rendered should be continuous and broken periods could not be added together to arrive at qualifying service. As such, there is no distinction between adhoc service and regular service for the purpose of counting the qualifying service for pension as long as it is a service under the Government. There is no merit either in the argument that only continuous service rendered from 2.7.2002 could be counted for pension.”

and directed the Respondents (Writ Petitioners) to count the Ad hoc service rendered by the 1st Respondent/Applicant from 26.06.2000 to 21.03.2002 as Qualifying Service and process his pension case accordingly etc.

3. Challenging the Correctness, Validity and Legality of the impugned order dated 06.07.2016 in O.A.No.458 of 2015 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition by taking a plea that the 2nd Respondent/Tribunal had failed to consider that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was appointed on Ad hoc basis with effect from 26.06.2000 with a clear mention that his appointment was purely on Ad hoc basis and does not confer any right for regular absorption as Group-D.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was initially engaged as 'GDS' and the appointment to Group-D is 100% Direct Recruitment and appointment of GDS as Group 'D' is a Direct Recruitment and