Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retiral dues to the petitioner alongwith 18% interest.

3. By the amendment application, the petitioner has further prayed for mandamus to treat him as a regular employee from 4.8.1999 or at least from 28.11.2004 and in the nature of mandamus declaring Regulation 370 (ii) of the Civil Services Regulation to be ultra vires as being hit by Articles 14, 19 and 31(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. The brief facts of the case, stated in the writ petition, are that initially the petitioner was engaged by oral order as Beldar in the Department of respondent No. 2 in the year 1987 and after continuously serving three years he was issued appointment letter on 1.1.1990 appointing him temporarily for the period 1.1.1990 to 28.2.1990. In the appointment letter, it was clearly stipulated that the services of the petitioner shall be terminated after the expiry of aforesaid period without any notice. The petitioner continued to work regularly even after the expiry of stipulated period. The petitioner continued to work after 28.2.1990 and paid monthly salary. In the year 1999, respondent No. 3 by order dated 4.8.1999 resolved to regularize all the ad hoc employees working for the years against the sanctioned post in their districts.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that though the exercise for regularization was to be completed in the year 1999-2000 but the order of regularization was issued on 23.11.2004 in which the petitioner’s name found place at serial No. 23 in the pay-scale of Rs. 2550-3200/-. The appointment letter dated 23.11.2004 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner, after completing the age of superannuation, was retired from the post of Beldar by office order dated 21.5.2011.

6. The petitioner is now claiming post retiral benefit. He is challenging the Regulation 370 (ii) of the Civil Services Regulation to be ultra vires which provides that only those employees, who were in regular service for a period of 10 years, are entitled for pensions and post retiral benefits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 23.11.2004 by which the petitioner has been appointed against a vacant post should be treated as the appointment on regular basis, though in the order, it is mentioned that the appointment is on temporary basis because the said order has been issued in pursuance of the letter of the Chief Engineer, Jhansi Region, P.W.D., Jhansi dated 4.8.1999, which relates to the regularization of service. He submitted that as per the order dated 4.8.1999, issued by respondent No. 3, the regularization of ad hoc employee had to be completed within 11.8.1999, though the order was passed on 8.11.2004 but the petitioner services should be considered to have been regularized in the year 1999.

8. In support of the contention, he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. (Kumari) Ranjana Saxena v. Vice Chancellor, Rohilkand University, Bareilly and others, 1980 UPLBEC 225, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others v. Bachan Singh, JT 2009 (10) SC 252, Babu Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 371 and Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India and others, (1996) 7 SCC 113.

9. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that both the appointment letters dated 1.1.1990 and 23.11.2004 reveal that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary. At no stage, the petitioner’s services have been regularised and he was appointed on a regular basis. In the order dated 23.11.2004, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment was temporary against the vacancy and the services can be terminated by giving one month’s notice. The petitioner could not challenge the said order.